Noam: Its ‘unprecedented’

wv wrote:

Noam calls the uprising and the popular support for them, ‘unprecedented.’

My own view, is different. The uprising may be unprecedented, but i dont buy into the idea there is great public support for it. My evidence is simple – Bernie vs Biden. The DEMOCRAT voters had a choice. They chose Biden.

I wouldn’t mix those 2 things up.

One, yes, is unprecedented. Unless you can name the last time there were massive protests in 700 towns and cities for 2 weeks.

The other is just machine politics winning.

One marxist term that’s really useful in times like this is “uneven developments” which (briefly) just means that processes are complicated and you don’t expect all things to be going at the same pace at the same time. People are not as attuned to democratic machine politics and tend to normalize it. People are also deeply affected by issues involving human rights and equality before the law–there is a source of raw power and energy to draw on there. In the summer of 2020 that raw energy got tapped by the issue of policing and racial injustice in a way that has never happened before (if you look back at the civil rights era, civil rights demonstrations polled negatively).

The war has many fronts. Some are doing better than others right now. But then–no one could have guessed in advance that what happened this summer would happen.

…

My own view is that there isn’t a necessary conflict between “desire for change” and voting for Biden. I don’t see the tragic results of the Dem primaries as necessarily conflicting with support for radical change on the BLM front . . .

It goes without saying that I also think it was a massive mistake to choose Biden over Sanders — for a host of reasons we’ve all talked about. For the nation and the planet. While I personally don’t think Sanders goes far enough — likely cuz he doesn’t think the country is remotely ready for that — he is head and shoulders above the rest. But, my gut tells me, most Dems voting for Biden think Biden has the best chance to defeat Trump, and that’s the kind of “change” they want most. A good portion, in fact, is likely outright afraid that Sanders would lose, and they sincerely view defeating Trump as major change, and I agree with them.

Trump (and GOP control overall), IMO, is a once in a century kind of menace, and needs to end. Bolton’s recent revelations just underscore that all the more, as does Trump’s attempt to silence the book (and the one by his niece) . . . Trump telling Xi he approved of his plans to build concentration camps for Chinese minorities; Trump’s saying journalists (that criticize him) should be executed; Trump’s telling Erdogan he would crush investigations into personal friends/businesses, etc. etc. We have never had a president so willing (so often) to act corruptly, recklessly, dangerously, in his own best interest or that of his cronies. It’s just not close.

So, anyway, these uprisings are different . . . In 1968, Nixon successfully turned them into a referendum on “the left,” on “chaos,” on the “liberal consensus” that had basically been in place for roughly 35 years to that point. For “Law and Order,” which all too many heard as white supremacy at the point of a gun, and approved. We’ve now had the reactionary consensus in place since the 1970s — more than 40 years. I just don’t see Trump and the GOP being able, as the incumbents, to paint this as a “time for change” when they’re really asking for more of the obscenely failed same old same old. Their agenda, in a nutshell, is turbo-corporatism/hard neoliberalism + fake-libertarianism + Ron Paul/Lost Cause nationalism + outright fascism in suits.

Americans really do want a change from that. I just wish their dreams and hopes for change were far wider/deeper in scope. Dime store assessment? That scope has been beaten out of them for generations, and “the left” needs to find better ways of beautiful landscape painting.

I likely sidetracked the thread from the real point(s) . . . the uprisings/Chomsky, etc. Will post more, later, on that and try to keep on point. Apologies.

Hope all are healthy, safe and the proverbial hanging in there.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.

waterfield wrote:

I’m going to assume you are using “progressive” as a noun and not a verb. Because I believe many democrats be they liberal or centrist think progressively in terms of seeking a “forward” out of the present which focuses on going backward in search of Camelot.

And that’s not what leftists and progressives mean when we say someone is or isn’t a leftist or progressive.

If you’re going to respect different views, W, you have to actually have a sense of what they are to the people who hold them.

Justa thot.

…

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

Cool.

I prettymuch disagree with most of that. And i submit, the evidence is not just Bernie vs Biden. Thats just one example among hundreds. For starters there’s Bernie vs 99 Senators. These radical-progressive-anarchist-antifa-lead uprisers voted over and over and over for Corporate-Dem-Senators and Corporate-Rep-Senators.
Over and over and over. Its not just about Trump or voting for people that might beat Trump, etc.

If this country really had a large segment of progressive, informed, critical thinkers there would be evidence in the Senate. There aint.

Wanna look at the House of Rep? Whats ‘that’ look like. A smattering of progressives here and there.

So, no, I aint buying it. I think the bewildered herd will be baffled and confused and entertained and self-absorbed again, in a few weeks. And the very small number of committed critical-thinkers will be bashing on, relentlessly, as per usual.

w
v

But this is kind of tricky because people don’t vote for candidates who represent their policy opinions. (And there aren’t many progressives to vote for, and where they do appear on the ballot, the big money machine backs their opponent).

There is a disconnect between the things people want the government to do, and the people for whom they vote. People, as you well know, vote on slogans or whatever. They vote on gut feelings. Or name recognition.

People, by an overwhelming majority, want universal health care. And better pay. And a clean environment. And so on. Why they don’t vote for candidates who will work for those policies is a separate, baffling question. But we have a general idea of why.

So we have all those MAGAs who hate the government because they’ve been screwed, and they vote for a guy who is going to screw them even more, and they love him. There is a disconnect.

But the dissatisfaction is real. Even if people aren’t clear on the “underlying systemic-problem.”

What people need is a more convincing version of Bernie Sanders to lead the way. We need someone bold. Someone who could tell those crowds of people to go on strike. They would do it. And they would win. We’re “this” close to forcing real concessions out of the owners. I think this IS different. But I also think it won’t go anywhere unless somebody harnesses it. And right now, the only person who can is Sanders, and he long ago decided he wouldn’t.

I agree, Zooey. People don’t vote for policies, unfortunately. They vote for “charisma,” at least as perceived. They vote for the people they feel most connected to, for whatever reason.

And this works both ways. It’s why mainstream Dems have always been wrong to believe that “progressives can’t win cuz their policies are too extreme for America.” It goes without saying our policies aren’t “extreme.” But the real point is, again, voters don’t vote on policies anyway. They vote personalities. So . . . as you mentioned . . . find the right people to push a progressive or leftist agenda, and they’ll win.

Sanders really isn’t that guy — nor is Biden, of course. He has some of that “thing” needed. But not enough. And, sad to say it’s a factor, but it is. He’s too old. As is Biden.

And, of course, the disconnect isn’t just before the event. It’s there for a reelections too. It’s there for incumbents.

Trump has done everything in the world for corporate America and the super-rich, and not one damn thing for his “forgotten Americans.” He slashed taxes for himself, his family, the rich and corporations, stacked his cabinet with the most billionaires in American history, and tried to install even more that were denied confirmation. He’s gutted regulations on business, corporations, Finance, made it a hell of a lot easier to screw workers in the workplace and pollute our environment. And his bailouts couldn’t be more lopsided in favor of the super-rich.

His deeds shout out “corporate-lovin’, self-dealin’ sellout,” but his fans don’t see it, and they don’t see this is the pattern across the world for every “right-populist.”

IMO, yes, America would vote for actual leftists if they have the “it” factor, and at least nominal support from a party’s machinery. They routinely vote in right-wingers who aggressively screw them over. To me, it makes zero sense that they’d do that and not vote for people who truly work to improve their quality of life — unlike anyone on the political right.

Another factor, tied into sales, marketing and “connecting.”

Symbols that trigger those connections. Tapping into sentimental attachments, especially to a “golden age” that never was. Flags, anthems, NASCAR, Wraslin’. Etc. etc. Sentimental triggers. Reducing fears of the present and future via references to the past — again, a past that never was, but is thought to have existed.

Right-wingers are masters at this, all around the globe. They draw voters in via that, distract them to no end, wind them up so they don’t see how they’re being screwed even more by the right-wingers than they ever were by the centrists.

And, of course, it often gets very, very dark. Whipping up hatred toward minorities, especially black and brown people, and women. We leftists can never go that route, not ever, and we won’t, and we should never align with those who do. But we can find other symbols, other points of connection, to draw in voters, and we can find people who have “it.”

That’s how we win.

Stacy Alaimo from Facebook

[me note–S.A. is the author of this:

link https://www.amazon.com/Bodily-Natures-Science-Environment-Material/dp/0253222400/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=stacy+alaimo&qid=1592672828&s=books&sr=1-2

and now to the actual post—>]

I’ve been excited and hopeful about the uprisings and some of the official responses that suggest there is finally (!!!) some long overdue momentum to stop racist police violence. But I am concerned about the backlash brewing (being purposefully vague here because the specifics are triggering). And even though I’m glad so many people are reading and thinking and talking about racism and white privilege I’m worried that this will evaporate into a fuzzy sort of “awareness” (versus legislation and material change!), which various corporate and other entities pin on their products (like the pink ribbon of Susan B Komen foundation that adorns many carcinogenic products). Also, I’ve heard a few radio interviews in which white people claimed to know nothing about racism, cheerfully admitting their ignorance, which troubles me. My immediate reaction is, uh, where have you been living? WTF? But I also think about all the courses I used to teach that were focused on race, in which white students would claim to know nothing about racism, until I asked them whether they had anyone in their family who was racist or whether they had ever been around white people who were racist. As it turns out, sadly, they knew a lot about racists and racism. I’m feeling shaky with hope that things might finally begin to change, but also wary of, say the sudden endorsement of Juneteenth on a bunch of products and services, the fuzzy warm “awareness” that makes white people comfortable in their new (?) consciousness, and the ways “ignorance” can be performed as innocence. This is a mess of thoughts and feelings–that I am sure have been articulated better by someone else.

wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Why is a liberal or centrist Dem NOT a “critical thinker” ? Based on who would be better Sanders or Biden to beat Trump ?

============

OK, fair enough. I’ll change it to Progressive-Thinker. 🙂

How many progressive-thinkers have been elected in the Senate in the last quarter of a century?

You outnumber us, W. By a large margin.

w
v

I’m curious: what would a WV “Progressive” U.S. look like in your opinion? I don’t mean generalities such as people being nice to each other; minorities on an equal plane; poor not poor, etc. But how would the government actually look to you under a Sanders administration and a majority of progressives in both houses ? Health care, Corporations, Military, Taxes, Criminal and Civil Justice system, Bill of Rights, Citizen’s United, Private Enterprise, etc.