Why, No One on the Left Has Ever Discussed a Third Party…
I find a great deal of Doug Henwood’s over-wrought Obama “endorsement” irritating and wrong, but I’d like to concentrate on this for the moment:
As I paged through this magazine’s recent presidential endorsement issue, I searched vainly for the “plague on both their houses” point of view. Though many Obama fans are happy to cite the spirit of the Occupy movement, they don’t want any part of the skepticism about electoral politics that many Occupiers express. Vote Green, vote Socialist Workers, don’t vote at all—there was no trace of those venerable positions in these pages.
I’m not sure that I’d embrace any of those positions myself. But I wish, just once, an endorsement of a Democratic presidential candidate coming from the left would mull over some serious structural issues that are at stake.
Um… really? I mean, really? I’ll grant that LGM rather oversaturates on this issue, but could we please dispense with the notion that no one on the left ever talks about third parties, dealbreakers, not voting for Dems, etc? To suggest that no endorsement of a Democratic presidential candidate coming from the left has mulled over some serious structural issues is either appallingly lazy or utterly misinformed; seems to me that there’s a considerable space on the left that does nothing but wring its hands (and at LGM engage in counter-wringing, whatever that may be) about the structural issues associated with voting Democratic in Presidential elections. For crying out loud, just two weeks ago we were supposed to be taking seriously the pained ruminations of a guy who would never, ever consider voting for Obama on the subject of why leftists shouldn’t vote for Obama.
Uh… really?
I don’t recall skepticism about electoral politics being any significant part of the Occupy movement.
I recall plenty of skepticism about Democrats and the Democratic Party, sure. But about electoral politics? I mean, what precisely would the leftward alternative to electoral politics as a system for choosing leaders BE, exactly? I don’t think you’ll find a lot of monarchists or autocrats among the Occupiers.
But if you assume that the Democrats are the only legitimate means of political expression, then skepticism about the Democrats is necessarily skepticism about electoral politics.
Alternatively, one could be skeptical about the effectiveness of electoral politics as currently practiced in the United States to challenge entrenched power relationships, which would be a pretty reasonable position, and one that seems to align with the views of the Occupy movement (generally, anyway) as I understand them.
But if you assume that the Democrats are the only legitimate means of political expression [for the left]…
Edit fail (mine and the platform’s).
Clearly, though, the people who took to the streets, organized a national movement, occupied parks, fought with the police to draw attention to their issues, yadda yadda yadda, are not people who assume that choosing between the two parties is the only legitimate means of political expression.
You are talking about the Occupy movement in your head not the real one. Occupy never produced any demands, let alone a program, a slate of candidates, or a party. Saying that the Dems have wrapped themselves in Occupy whilst Occupy eschewed electoral politics is simply empirically true.
what precisely would the leftward alternative to electoral politics as a system for choosing leaders BE, exactly?
All power to the Vanguard of the Proletariate!
Kereknskiism is doomed. Power will fall into the hands of the Soviets like an overripe fruit.
Splat!
The question itself is facile and based on a willful misreading of both what actually happened in Occupy and what Henwood wrote.
LGMers manage to be both prigs and sophomoric in the same paragraph.
Clearly electoral politics by themselves are nowhere near enough. It gets tiresome being hectored by people whose political engagement consists of blogging and voting quadrennially. Perhap s that is what Mr. Henwood is referring to; I haven’t read his piece yet. After work…
No, but you’ll find anarchists among the Occupiers.
You can find anarchists, however. An OWS newspaper actually had a piece specifically disavowing any interest in electoral politics.
I’m pretty sure that a person can be “skeptical” or even cynical about the power of electoral politics to make social change and yet nonetheless still engsge with electoral politics instrumentally, using them while being simultaneously aware that they’re not Enough. In fact, I’m fairly certain this applies to every last person who has ever held remotely liberal or left-leaning opinions for the past few millennia.
Similarly, you can believe that gender is a social construct while also wanting to pass laws for equal pay for women, and you can believe that Big Pharma is corrupt while continuing to fill your prescriptions.
I don’t see why this needs to be so conceptually difficult.
One could do all kinds of things. But Occupy did not do what you say above. Henwood was clearly writing about how the Dems have wrapped themselves in Occupy whilst Occupy was deeply skeptical (or totally devoid of) electoral politics.
I know it is much easier to debate against what you wish someone had said, but this thread is just silly.
“I don’t recall skepticism about electoral politics being any significant part of the Occupy movement.”
No, there was a TON of skepticism about electoral politics coursing throughout Occupy. Not everyone of course.
But Occupy was absolutely right in stating that electoral politics is not how change is made. It is how change is institutionalized, but not made.
Definitionally speaking, if you believe this, you can’t really said to be skeptical about electoral politics, though.
I mean, correct me if wrong, but being skeptical about electoral politics necessarily means ‘I am not convinced that this system is better than possible alternative systems’ does it not? That’s different from ‘I am not convinced this system will lead to my preferred outcome.’
To be more precise, it’s that electoral politics is the least important part of making change. Still necessary, but the least important. It’s not about being skeptical. It’s about understanding how change actually occurs in American history. Electoral politics is absolutely necessary. But it merely reflects the state of organizing around issues.
Is it really least important?
I think you’re conflating significance with etiology. Electoral politics rarely is a successful means for originating change. Gay marriage is a good example there. Electoral politics tends to trail in a variety of ways. It is, at least in the US, both a direct and indirect way of effecting change (e.g., elections distribute power). I don’t think either is unimportant. In particular, it’s really really important to win elections if you want the change to have effect.
Of course, from a strategic view, this suggests that merely winning elections isn’t going to effect at least significant leftward shifts. We know why (building rather than destroying, veto points, etc.). Thus, for larger leftward shifts, it’s a bit counterproductive to focus too much on this or that election, instead of trying to build a sea change in the polity, or strategic lawsuits, etc. etc.
Doesn’t the gay marriage issue prove the point? Electoral politics have been almost totally irrelevant for the gay rights movement. Now that it is gaining popularity, you have a Democratic president willing to move a bit on the issue. Of course, a Republican wouldn’t have done so, showing the necessity of electoral politics. But electoral politics primarily give people the chance to institutionalize change already percolating on the ground.
I thought they proved my point!
Is this really true? There’s a lot of gay rights effort put into electoral politics and it does seem relevant. DADT repeal comes to mind.
We agree on that. My point is that institutionalizing (why not just effecting?) change is equally important even though it’s temporally (at least) second. This is why I distinguished significance from etiology. I agree that change typically originates elsewhere (though I think this is more complex with an interplay between activism, education, polling, elections, and governance). But that doesn’t diminish the significance of holding power.
Actually, one of the striking thing about gay rights is how much it’s intertwined with electoral politics. Republicans used opposition to gay rights endlessly (to various degrees of success).
You need both: The will to enact change and the power to enact change. The will comes first, typically, but that doesn’t make it more important or the power part less important.
Umm…electoral politics have been incredibly important for the gay rights movement. Leaving aside the many elections where gay marriage has been on the ballot, state level efforts to legalize marriage equality require electing pro-gay rights legislators and governors.
I’m not even sure the Occupy movement is all that much about electoral politics, as focused as they are on legislative process.
You need to get out more. It is pretty well documented that Occupy Wall Street and most Occupy movements nationally were skeptical about the possibilities of making significant political gains via electoral politics. This is the “we are the demand” crowd, hardly the basis for a platform and a party. For good or ill Occupy was heavily “prefigurative” and autonomist.
Doug is pretty precise with his word choice, and I suggest that you may want to consider the distinction between an electoral system (the mechanism by which a leader is selected) and electoral politics (what a candidate does to convince people to select him).
The important thing is that FDR was different because he used some rhetoric in 1936 about how he welcomed the hatred of big business. I mean, sure, after the election he fought for austerity policies far worse than anything Obama has ever considered supporting, but HE WELCOMED THEIR HATRED! I miss the golden age of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party was so much better in the 70s, when the Real Liberals made Robert Byrd a Congressional leader.
These modern Pelosi-crats just don’t match up.
Bring back the party of Howell Heflin and Richard Shelby!
OK, that was pretty good, but when Richard Russell was running the Senate Democratic caucus, now those were the days. What a gentleman!
You guys can laugh all you want, but if we didn’t have Dilan Esper threatening to take his ball and go home in presidential elections, Heath Shuler would be king shit right now.
after the election he fought for austerity policies far worse than anything Obama has ever considered supporting
How much of that can be attributed to republican pressure, or were he and Morgenthau to blame?
How much of that can be attributed to republican pressure
I’d assume pretty much none.
Thanks. But I probably phrased my question poorly. I really meant external pressure, whether republicans, conservative economists, business leaders or the media doing their bidding. Was he attacked from the right in the ’36 campaign for running up the deficit much like Obama has been this year, and did such attacks lead to a misguided consensus regarding the threat posed by the deficit which he subsequently acted upon?
I remain concerned that Obama will make a similar mistake if re-elected.
Was he attacked from the right in the ’36 campaign for running up the deficit much like Obama has been this year,
Oh hell yes.
and did such attacks lead to a misguided consensus regarding the threat posed by the deficit which he subsequently acted upon?
That I just don’t know. Why the hell doesn’t Rauchway blog any more? Because he’d know for sure.
Ask and you shall receive.
Damn that is a hell of a coincidence.
Coincidence…or superpower?
If I had that superpower, Fafblog and The Editors would be back as well, along with HTML Mencken.
That’s a super-duperpower.
Don’t let your reach exceed your grasp, Mal!
And billmon. I really miss billmon.
No, I miss The Horse.
And to be fair, he only did so for a year.
Right, but after that this Golden Age When Democrats Had A Spine consisted of the conservative coalition having a hammerlock on Congress for 25 years.
True, I’m just saying that ’63 doesn’t happen without ’38, ’48, and ’58.
This is just cheap posturing. If you bothered to read Henwood at all it is clear that Henwood respects FDR’s posture against the rich whilst FDR was implementing the most significant body of ameliorative reforms since reconstruction.
Here’s the best bit for me:
Heighten the contradictions by…voting for the Democrat!
This usefully ends all 3rd party debates. Vote for Obama because you think he’s the best available choice or to stick it to the Democrats for their rightward drift!
Vote for Obama because you think he’s the best available choice or to stick it to the Democrats for their rightward drift!
In New York state, at least, there’s a way to have your cake and eat it too. We have the Working Families Party, which rose from the ashes of the old Liberal Party (which was decertified from the ballot for lack of voter interest.) They endorse Obama– they practically parallel the entire Democratic ticket– but they are a union-backed organization and a bit more to the left of even the New York Democratic party.
So you can vote for Obama to prevent Romney’s ascendancy, but register your disenchantment with his policies.
Fusion voting is a good thing…
Yes, which suggests that expanding fusion voting to more states would be a major project for the left if it was serious about wanting power.
The New York Democratic Party isn’t actually all that left. It’s reliably loyal to the party because its composed of people who aren’t dumb, but its firmly neo-liberal when it comes to economic policies (it tends to produce people who are proponents of pity-charity liberalism) and it often throws out drug warriors and other tough-on-crime dirtbags.
It’s pretty socially liberal, though.
Yup, that the point where I decided that Henwood was a complete tool.
He said *the left* — a description that would exclude LGM with the probable exception of Loomis.
Also, he probably meant to refer to _True_ Scotsmen.
This is bringing back happy memories of libertarian-on-libertarian violence on the Reason blog.
No, I’m the real libertarian!
No, I am! You’re all a bunch of statists!
No, you’re the statist!
Good times. We should strive to be more like them.
David — I hate to tell you, but LGMers represent the left in American politics. I know you like to think that the real center of gravity in American politics is somewhere to the left of Denmark’s, but it’s just not the case.
I hate to tell you, but the term isn’t relative.
That’s a surprising line to take, both on the relativeness and on the assessment.
I wonder where the difference lies between Erik and say Scott. Are there secret labor haters in the ranks?
I’m being half-serious. And labels obscure as much as they clarify. I think the term “left” can mean different things. It can refer broadly to “liberals,” and everyone here would qualify. But it can also refer to people to the left of liberals, and to my eyes, Loomis excepted, the bloggers here wouldn’t even put themselves there.
I’m pretty sure that when Doug Henwood thinks of “the left,” he’s not thinking of a conventionally liberal, Democratic partisan outlet like this one.
And yes, it’s not relative term. John Hunstman didn’t not represent the left in GOP primaries.
John Hunstman didn’t not represent the left
I’m not sure whether I don’t disagree.
For real? Making fun of typos?
No, I’m genuinely unsure which position you are taking. This could be a result of a bad day at work rendering me easily confused.
it can also refer to people to the left of liberals
And
it’s not relative term
Don’t work well together.
Of course it’s relative–that’s what “left” means.
“Left” has “the” in front of it, and it generally refers in the American context to people who oppose capitalism or, more generally, who want to replace, possible through radical means, the existing order.
I’ll repeat my point: Henwood didn’t have the likes of LGM in mind when he said the left, and not just because LGM is relatively obscure.
I do think that Minzer is right here when he says that Henwood did not have a community like this in mind when defining the left.
Fine. But if you want to exclude left-liberals like LGM from the definition of left, then half or three-thirds or the readership of the Nation should be excluded too.
And this article was very much speaking to the readers of the Nation.
So much the worse for Henwood’s essay, which was already pretty awful.
I mean, is it that much more work to say, “It’s curious that center left people seem to obsess about third partism whereas the solid, correctly thinking left is almost silent about it.”
Again, as defence of the essay, is seems to work not at all.
FWIW, I agree with you. I think some people are taking it as a bad thing, when honestly, that’s what makes LGM great: It’s a Venn diagram where they’ve managed to extract the maximum amount of square footage from an intersection of left and mainstream.
Well, I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing, but I know that I come here partly to have leftist assumptions challenged.
Although Scott and I may have different styles about going about it, I don’t think I’m really further to the left than he is. We agree on almost every issue.
I think it’s fair to say that I’m not as left (or “more right”) than either Loomis or Lemieux. But then I’m not sure what the upside of a exclusive, non-relative definition of “left” might be.
Do you, like Lemieux, see no point in breaking up the big banks?
I’m not entirely convinced that small banks would do better. But I have no strong position on the matter because I don’t feel informed enough to make a statement.
You guys are Lawyers, Guns, and MONEY. You should find a blogger who understands/cares about Wall Street.
On the question of big banks, there’s a dispute among liberals about whether a system with smaller banks would be less likely to crash the economy (Krugman says no, Simon Johnson says yes) but there’s no doubt that for the political economy, having six banks control 60 percent of GDP is pretty near disastrous.
When I was chosen, I understand it was between me and someone who really understood the intricate nature of the banking system. But I had my historical cat boxing videos and that pushed me over the top.
Small banks are a lot more prone to clubbish, chamber-of-commerce, old boy network issues, especially for business funding. Big banks are a lot more likely to be strictly-by-the-numbers, but are more likely to cook numbers, plus concentrated risk poses systemic risks that small banks probably don’t have.
I favor small banks, but am willing to admit that my perspective is probably biased by the fact that I have at least 5 small banks where I know the President and/or EVPs, based on my being a middle-aged white dude reasonably entrenched in a local business community. But if I were a minority starting up a new business, I’m not sure I’d have the same opinion.
Small banks are a lot more prone to clubbish, chamber-of-commerce, old boy network issues, especially for business funding.
Mr. Swope, you’re a pornographer.
Mr. Swope, you’re a pornographer.
Sure, but when utopia arrives we’ll all be lucky enough to be present for a botched doughnut store robbery.
This is a really terrible metric for measuring how ‘left’ someone is. I mean, you could argue that it’s the leftist position, but it’s not obvious or anything.
Really?
Calling for the re-institution of Glass-Steagall is pretty much a mantra on the, um, left, and rightly so.
But I’m interested that so many people here at this super-left blog oppose Glass-Steagall.
Bookmarked!
I don’t think you know what Glass-Steagall was.
?
GS put up a wall between commercial and investment banking. Bringing is back is not the only way to reduce the size and clout of megabanks — the gov should also cap their size, as Brown-Kauffman would’ve done — but it’s a good one.
I’ve got to agree with mizner. Signing the repeal of G-S is, if not the worst thing Clinton did, it is certainly in the bottom 5.
Although to be fair, I guess Lemieux and others would say they support G-S not because it contained the size of the banks but because it prevented banks from taking risks with people’s money.
Repealing G-S was indeed a horrible move, but not because it kept banks from getting big. It didn’t.
It didn’t.
True, but repeal allowed the big banks new ways to take on risks that proved systemic.
Then one shouldn’t use “break up the big banks” as a synonym for “reinstate Glass-Steagall.” That’s all I’m saying.
Yeah, I’m totally pro-GS, am really pissed that Clinton repealed it, etc.
But that’s not about the size of the bank per se. Scott’s point is that Canada has large banks and sufficient regulation. I would think that the core left position is, “Don’t give random banksters the keys to the economy; rather, make sure that we have a systems with sufficiently strong controls that they can’t pillage.” That’s orthogonal to size.
Then one shouldn’t use “break up the big banks” as a synonym for “reinstate Glass-Steagall.”
Ah. That’s fair. I hadn’t realized that was happening. That will teach me to read partial threads…
It didn’t do that either. The worst failures, such as Lehman, Bear Sterns, and Merrill Lynch, were investment banks without commercial operations.
JP Morgan’s $2B dollar loss came all on the investment side, and they benefited from the relative stability of commercial banking deposits.
Do you, like Lemieux, see no point in breaking up the big banks?
SO, to be clear, as a litmus test for left-wing orthodoxy one must assume that the American banking system is worse than the Canadian one? Fascinating.
Wouldn’t that be more of an intelligence test than a litmus test?
Whoops — of course, I mean better, since the Canadian banking system is even more centralized. If this is working out worse, it’s not obvious to me.
Right. Breaking up US banks is a tactic, not an end in itself. More effective regulation is key. Nationalizing all the banks to make a giant megabank under government control seems like a perfectly leftwing solution (if not the only leftwing solution…I can imagine a mini-bank version as well).
The term “left” isn’t relative?
Partially perhaps, but it also refers to a set of beliefs.
And that set of beliefs is Eternal and Unchanging, in the World of Forms. They are not at all historically contingent.
Of course it’s a relative term.
Opposition to slavery was once a radical leftist position.
“Left” is intrinsically relative in all of its possible meanings.
Do you have a good dictionary? Use it.
Oh, I wish you would do so, david. I really do…
[Citation needed]
Here’s Merriam-Webster
a : those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order especially in politics and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man
b : a radical as distinguished from a conservative position
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left
Because “reform or overthrow” is clearly one set of unitary, unchanging, non-contingent beliefs.
A “desire to reform or overthrow the established order” is still relative, since you define it by reference to the etablished order, whatever that may be.
Ha!
You people are incapable of admitting you were wrong.
Keep fucking that walrus, david.
David,
Some crazy shit happens in two and a half weeks and on Jan. 20th Jill Stein takes her place as US dictator.
Are the people who wish to overthrow the established order on Jan. 21 automatically “the left”?
I suppose I could admit to being wrong even though I’m not. Everyone has a price for compromising their principles. So, David, how much are you willing to fork over for me to dishonestly admit I’m wrong about this? I think it would be crass of you to accuse me of being unable to admit I’m wrong without making any effort to encourage it first.
[Singing, in best Roger Daltrey voice]:
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right . . .
Damn, I always thought it was “and now the Party on the Left / is the now the Party on the Right”
“You don’t spend a thousand dollars on clothes that you’re never going to wear.”
YYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
True, but it’s hard to see how Obama represents ‘the left’.
He will get his votes for not being a granny-starving lunatic(though he may trade away a couple starving years for Republican compliance).
But surely Obama is far to the right than the median LGM front poster, yes?
But then why are they voting for him? They never explain that.
The reticence of the LGM bloggers to detail their reasons for voting Obama is clearly a result of the cognitive dissonance that their tribal ways force upon them.
Does it make much sense to compare the policy preferences of a commentator with the actual policies put into effect by a working politician? I’m not sure they can be judged on the same scale.
I would say that the views of the median LGM front-pager are probably not very far away from the views of the median Obama voter.
Really?
I would think they are quite a bit to the left, esp. when you consider e.g., the full range of civil liberty issues, taxes, SS and health care, etc.
I really need a good source of general US opinion polling data…
Fair enough. Then there is no left in the US. The concept of left isn’t just relational to the right but has actual content. If LGM is the extent of the left, then there is no left. Or alternately, LGM (and the nation) have the role of policing the left, in working endlessly to declare everything to the left of LGM to be illegitimate.
“Represent” is not the same as “covers entirely”.
Arguably, “the left in the US” means “the people with the leftmost views in the US” so that “the US left is considerably to the right of most Eu Green parties”. I would agree that some recognizable overlap of content is needed…but that’s what’s needed to put on on the left of someone else.
In any case, LGM clearly is on the left, in general, and is quite a bit to the left of the medium Democratic vote in congrees, and constantly criticises Obama from the left, and if we make a “liberal-left” divide is probably closer to the bulk of US leftists than, say, Henwood. And that’s not a superradical left position, but, then, neither is the bulk of the US left.
And this is inclusive. I don’t see anyone here denying that the more leftier than thou crowd is on the left, whereas david is claiming that Henwood wouldn’t regard LGM as being on the left and thus our endless discussions of electoral strategy does not tell agains Henwood’s bemoaning.
Which is, obviously, pretty dumb. I thought Henwood was better than that. But I thought he was better than the “Vote Obama to heighten the contradictions” line as well.
If the US left can be effectively “policed” by some guys on a blog disagreeing with some of their tactics, then it’s so pathetic it was never going to take power anyway. (And by “taking power” I include “remembering to pay the electric bill.”)
Of course, this doesn’t save the post from its inanity and incoherence.
What work does excluding LGM do to rehabilitate Henwood’s argument? “Well, those right wingers at LGM are debating 3rd party moves all the time…why can’t real leftists do some of that!”
This debate isn’t nearly as interesting as the debate about naval battles that never actually happened.
and at LGM engage in counter-wringing, whatever that may be
TRANSLATION: We wring our hands in the opposite direction
LGM is Australian?
Well if they would just shell out for some quality granite-tops instead of using sponge, they wouldn’t have to do so much bloody wringing.
Oh yeah and Cabrera 2-run homer!!
Does gloating block out your RedSox pain!! They’re just lapses … Not losses, right?
But it’s widdershins not widderhands. You need to be both upside down as well as backwards.
I need some help figuring out if my “Coexist” bumper sticker is farther to the the left than my “I Share The Road” bumper sticker.
No. Left is not a relative term.
“Coexist With the Wall, Kulak” is a Left bumper sticker, in the non-relative American context.
My Other Car Is A Moskvitch.
Good thing my grandparents got the hell out of the Ukraine before mark f caught up with them for a re-education session.
I find the counter-wringing much more prevalent than the wringing of hands. If you removed the essential fuel of counter-wringing from this blog, Lemieux and Farley would seize up like engines deprived of oil. If Nader didn’t exist, they would have had to invent him.
This is Spot on. The counter-wringing has the effect of demarcating anything to the left of Lemieux and Farley as beyond the pale. They signal left but have the effect of pushing political discourse to the right.
This is interesting because Farley does not strike me as any kind of leftist at all, but rather a center right type moderate. Certainly by academic standards he is by no means on the left side of the political spectrum compared to most US professors. I have no idea where to place Lemieux’s politics other than Obama worship which on an international scale is not particularly leftist. But, then again it is not particularly anything.
Wow, I really thought you were better and smarter than that. My mistake.
You’ve not spent much time in the business or engineering departments of most universities apparently.
If you read this blog you know the LGM guys are to the left of the Democratic party platform by any measure. They were for gay marriage before it was cool, wanted the “nuclear option” to be deployed for the Alito and Roberts nominations, and I’m pretty sure they’d want legalization of marijuana. The strain of thought that comprises “leftier-than-thou” is BS; especially when applied to your fellow liberals.
Not to mention they’ve waged a near decade-long campaign of death and destruction against Mickey Kaus.
Also, The Democratic Party has yet to adopt an anti-Jewel plank. More’s the pity…
You had to bring up the darkest day in LGM history, didn’t you?
I think of it as noon’s moment in the sun. Either that, or Althouse’s discussion of his penis, are pinnacles of achievement few can match.
Dammit.
That’s just silly.
The primary point of dispute is tactics, not outcomes. The primarily counter-wringing complaint is that thrid-partism in elections have made things worse and are likely to continue to do so.
That doesn’t mean that analyses of what’s wrong or what would be better can’t easily be shared between anti-3rdpartiers and fools^H^H^H^H third partiers.
And it’s just inane to say that the strategic discussion push the discourse about substance to the right. Nothing prevents us from discussion both what the better options are and what we’re likely to be able to get.
There are attempts to mark some people as outside the left but it seems to be coming from the other direction.
Rrrright. Naval policy, civil liberty issues, constitutional issues, politics, and other defense issues have never been discussed here by those two. Praise the Lord for Mein Nader!
I’m designing a Moskvitch that runs on “the essential fuel of counter-wringing.” It comes with aunts from opposite sides of your family in the back seat.
“You’re driving to fast! I think you missed a turn!”
“Oh, leave him alone. You’re gonna make him nervous!”
LGM has representation in the Nation’s prez endorsement issue? I musta missed that. Silly Henwood.
If I had superpowers I’d bring back Steve Gilliard. Though Andy Northrup is a cool dude.
And Tanta.
+1
I dunno. For this election, Al Weisel (Jon Swift, to the blognoscenti). He’d be perfect in skewring the entitlement culture of the Romneys
Isn’t it way past the time for clinging to electoral lesser evilism? Didn’t Hal Draper pretty much nail this road to nowhere decades ago? So, incidentally, did Eugene Debs. The process for building a mass socialist organisation in the US will be unbelievably difficult and take a long time but, seriously, is voting Democrat and hoping that they don’t do what they always do in office a better alternative?