Democratic Voters Don't Want Moderates or Leftists - They Want FIGHTERS!

Yesterday, I posted about how the establishment and media don't understand this year's voters - who are not choosing between leftists or moderates. They are instead looking for fighters. Today, Robert Reich comments on that:

With the victory of progressive Abdul El-Sayed over Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Democratic primary yesterday, prepare yourself to hear enormous quantities of bullsh*t about the Democratic Party now being “taken over” by “Democratic Socialists.” 

Or as the reliably establishment New York Times described what’s at stake, “can an insurgent candidate, with unabashedly left-wing positions, win in a moderate state?”

Oh, p-l-e-a-s-e. 

Michigan Democrats didn’t choose El-Sayed because he’s “unabashedly left wing” or a Democratic Socialist (in fact, he’s not).

They chose him because he’s a fighter — at a time when America needs fighters willing to stand up to the worst tyrant who has ever occupied the Oval Office.

 

Corporate Democrats — such as Haley Stevens, along with Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries — aren’t up to the task because they won’t bite the corporate hands that feed them campaign money. They won’t criticize the billionaire class. They refuse to see how big money has corrupted America.

Yet it’s big corporations and the billionaire class that are supporting Trump’s neo-fascism. They’ve sucked up to Trump for corporate welfare, giant tax cuts, tariff exemptions, antitrust acquiescence, and war contracts. They’ve given Trump hundreds of millions for his inauguration, his ballroom, his 250th birthday, his superPAC. 

Jamie Dimon and Wall Street; Elon Musk and his billionaire bro’s; Brad Carp and his corporate lawyers; Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Ellisons — all have sold their integrity for huge profits. They’ve created media empires that won’t criticize Trump, financial empires that feed Trump’s crypto, energy empires that feed off Trump’s war, and legal empires that allow Trump to ride roughshod over the rule of law. 

Which is why America desperately needs people in Congress who will fight against Trump and his sycophants. 

The Democratic Party isn’t being taken over by Democratic Socialists. There’s no civil war between progressives and moderates. This isn’t about Israel or Netanyahu. We aren’t witnessing an ideological battle between the “left” and the “center.”

We’re seeing America wake up to the tyranny that’s engulfed us, and to a crisis of affordability that’s causing most Americans to struggle financially while fueling the biggest stock market rally in history. 

When corporate America and Wall Street are unleashed — when the president of the United States has made an implicit deal with the moneyed interests to back him and his authoritarian regime in exchange for tax cuts, deregulation, monopolization, and pay-to-play corruption — of course prices soar and wages stagnate. 

Tyranny is the handmaiden of the moneyed interests.

 

The Democratic Party’s mega-donor class may be horrified by the rising tide of progressive populism overtaking more than a few primaries this cycle. It spent tens of million of dollars on Stevens — making the Michigan primary one of the most expensive in American history. 

Too bad. It’s time that the Democratic Party’s mega-donor class recognizes that its real choice is between democracy and tyranny, between an economy that works for all or one that works for a small sliver at the top. If the mega-donor class chooses the latter, it may be acting in its narrow self-interest, but it will also be acting against the future of this nation.

"Establishment" Dems Don't Seem To Understand The Mood Of Voters This Year

The Democrats in Michigan have made their choice in the race for the United States Senate. They have chosen Abdul El-Sayed in a close vote over Haley Stevens.

That was not the outcome that "establishment" Democrats had wanted. They were afraid that the voting public, especially Independents, would view El-Sayed as too left-wing and opt for his Republican opponent. In fact, they pumped tens of millions of dollars into the Stevens campaign to defeat El-Sayed - so much money that El-Sayed was outspent by about an eleven to one ratio.

My personal view is that the DNC and other establishment Democratic groups should not have done that. They should not have sided with one Democrat over another in a primary. The Democrats in Michigan (and in other states) are not idiots - and they are not children who must be told by party leaders how to vote. 

But even more important, the interference in a state primary race tells me the establishment Democratic groups don't really understand where the voting public stands in this election year. Michigan Democrats did not choose El-Sayed because he was a leftist. In fact, he and Stevens are probably very close on most issues facing the country. They chose him because they viewed him as a fighter - someone who would fight hard for ordinary Americans, and not give in to Trump or his corporate buddies when crunch time arrived.

And sadly, that is not how the party's elected officials are currently viewed. They are viewed by the public as being weak and ineffectual - unable or unwilling to fight hard against Trump, the GOP, or the billionaire oligarchs. Note the chart below:

Note that most Democrats don't think their current congressional leaders fight hard enough - and pluralities of Independent, registered voters, and adults agree with them.

The voters are not really worrying about left and right in this election. They want leaders who will fight hard to make life more affordable for ordinary Americans, and will fight hard to protect the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans. This is true of both Democrats and Independents. They don't want someone who will return things to "normal". Normal was already bad - even before Trump made it worse. They want real fighters who will make things better.

Instead of worrying about how left-wing El-Sayed (and others) are, the establishment Democrats should be thankful for them. They are infusing a fighting spirit into the party - one that is badly needed! They need to stop trying to make the party more "centrist", and join the voters in fighting for a more equal economy and a government that protects the rights of everyone.

Democratic and Independent voters are looking for centrists or moderates. They are looking for FIGHTERS!

Chomsky Gives 8 Reasons To Not Vote Third Party In 2016

(This photo of Leftist thinker Norm Chomsky is by Duncan Rawlinson/Wikimedia.)

Noam Chomsky is one of my heroes. I believe he is the leading voice in the United States for left-wing ideology. One might think that he would urge his followers to vote for the Green Party in the presidential election (since that is the farthest left of any of the political parties on enough ballots to have a theoretical chance of getting 270 electoral votes), but that is not what he's saying. He thinks it would be a mistake for American leftists to vote for a third party this year -- and he lists 8 reasons why that is true:

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

The "Nanny State" Ogre Raises Its Ugly Head Again

I am probably going to anger some of my brothers and sisters on the left with this post, but that can't be helped. I firmly believe the most important values an American can have are a belief in democracy and freedom. And I believe that a new law being proposed violates the principle for freedom (which is the right of every person to live his/her life as desired).

I am talking about the newest proposed "sin tax". It would put a 1 cent tax on every teaspoon of sugar that goes into a soft drink (and would levy that tax on the manufacturer -- which would drive up the cost of the product). The idea is that driving up the cost would cause many consumers to forego buying the product -- and the tax proceeds could be used to fight obesity and diabetes. The people proposing this law are convinced that sugar is bad for people. They could be right, even though I tend to think its use in moderation is not harmful. But even if they are right, I oppose this law.

I have no problem with their belief, or their right to promote that belief. I am a firm believer that Americans should have the right to free speech (even if that speech is offensive). Those who believe sugar is bad for a person should be able to use every available method (TV and print ads, articles, social media, etc.) to promote their message. But when they try to impose their belief through the passage of a law (which would apply to everyone), then they have crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed.

The crazy part is that many of these people who want to impose this "nanny state" tax are the same individuals who oppose right-wing fundamentalists when they try to impose their religious views through the passage of law (believing that would be for the "good" of everyone). I believe these efforts of both the right and left to dictate the choices and behavior of other Americans are wrong. Freedom means you should have the right to make your own decisions -- even if those decisions are thought to be wrong by others.

You may be saying to yourself at this point that the law only raises the price of the product significantly, and anyone who wants to buy the product could still do so. If you are talking about the rich and the upper middle class, that would be correct -- as they could still afford to buy the product even if the tax doubled or tripled the price. But most Americans aren't rich or upper middle class. Over half of the American population lives on an income within 150% of the poverty line -- and these are the people that would be most severely affected by this new tax.

These people (poor, low-wage workers, people living on a fixed income, unemployed, etc.) -- the very people whose cause the left champions -- are the people whose freedom would be curtailed. Many of them would have the choice of buying that product taken away from them by do-gooders who claim to know what is best for everyone else -- and that is just wrong. It denies them the freedom to make their own choices, and live their lives as they wish -- and they should have the same rights to make their own choices as any other Americans (regardless of whether others might think their choices are bad ones).

I believe this bad "nanny state" law should be tossed in the trash before some misguided legislators can pass it. And I am not alone in this belief. As the chart above shows, only 20% of Americans would support this crazy tax, while a massive 72% say they oppose it.

It all boils down to whether you believe in a free country, or a country where government can dictate the choices of it citizens "for their own good". I choose freedom -- and the right to make my own choices (regardless of what others may think of those choices).

The chart above was made from information in a recent Rasmussen Poll -- conducted on August 5th and 6th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 3 points.

Tyranny Is Still Tyranny - Whether From The Right Or Left

(This cartoon is by Ben Garrison at bengarrison.com.)

The United States is supposed to be a free country -- a country where each citizen has the same rights and privileges, and can make their own choices about how they wish to live their lives. Unfortunately, there are many in this country who seem to have a different definition of freedom. For them, freedom means having the right to force their fellow citizens to live as they want them to live -- and these people populate both the right and left political wings.

On the right, these people would like to force other Americans to accept their religion through force of law (and would even force their religion on children through the public school system).They would keep women as second-class citizens, and deny them the right to control their own bodies. And they would deny equal rights to minorities, immigrants, and homosexuals -- because they believe equal rights are only for those who look like and agree with them. They would also fine or jail others for using marijuana -- the safest drug known to man. But forcing another to accept your beliefs or denying them rights is not freedom -- it is tyranny.

It is easy for those of us on the left to see that kind of tyranny. By there is also a form of tyranny that exists on the left side of the political spectrum. There are those who want to outlaw cigarettes, carbonated sodas, fried foods and fast foods, and firearms. And they would join many on the right in outlawing pornography. But denying citizens the right to choose is not freedom -- it is tyranny.

Oddly enough, those on the right and the left use the same argument to try and impose their views on others. Both sides will tell you it is for your own good, and the good of all citizens. That may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter because it has no place in a free and democratic society (even if it is the will of the majority).

We need to make up our minds in this country -- do we want to live in a free and open society, or a society where we are forced to do things because others think it is for our own good? Freedom means people have the right to make their own choices and live their lives as they please, even if those choices are bad and their lifestyle is one that hurts them. That is the very essence of a free society -- to be able to make our own choices, even bad choices. Denying any citizen the right to make a choice (good or bad) is a denial of freedom. It is tyranny.

I am not a moderate, but a proud leftist. But that doesn't mean I will accept tyranny from the left anymore than I would accept it from the right. I believe in democracy, and in a free and open society. Don't you? Isn't it time we stood up to tyranny from both sides of the political spectrum?

Only 30% of Americans Trust Scientists To Tell The Truth

No nation has benefitted more from the advances of science than the United States -- and those benefits are evident in all aspects of the society, from farming to industry, from technology to warfare, from health to space exploration, from safety to communication. Science has made the lives of all Americans better.

One would think that in a society that has benefitted so much from the advances of science, a significant majority of the public would have a lot of trust in scientists -- but that is not the case. Only about 30% of the American people (less than one out of every three Americans) say they have a lot of trust in scientists to tell them the truth, while 31% say they have no trust or very little trust in scientists. About 40% say they have only a moderate trust in scientists.

The groups that trust scientists the most are college grads (42%/15%), those with some college (32%/28%), ages 18 to 29 (38%/23%), Whites (33%/28%), Democrats (38%/27%), Midwesterners (32%/27%), Westerners (33%/24%), those making $40k to $100k (36%/23%), and those making above $100k(39%/16%). Sadly though, none of these groups even approaches a majority having complete or a lot of trust in scientists.

Three groups are evenly split on the question -- men (33%/33%), those in the Northeast (27%/27%), and political Independents (31%/31%). All other demographic groups show more distrust than trust of scientists -- with the worst being those with a HS education or less (20%/42%), Republicans (21%/31%), Southerners (27%/39%), Blacks (24%/39%), Hispanics (18%/35%), those making less than $40k (21%/42%), and those between 30 and 44 years old (27%/35%).

These are rather shocking numbers for all groups -- especially considering scientific pronouncements are peer-reviewed, and are subject to repeated experimentation for verification. I would love to be able to say this distrust of science is just because of attacks on science from the right-wing, but that would not be true. Science has been attacked from both the right and the left. The right has attacked science over evolution and global warming, while the left has attacked science over genetically-modified foods -- and both groups have been somewhat successful in their efforts, causing a deterioration in the trust of scientists.

These results are from a recent YouGov Poll (conducted between February 15th and 17th of 1,000 randomly selected nationwide adults, with a margin of error of 4.2 points).

Roseanne Still Running For President

Most of us who follow progressive politics in this country thought the presidential bid of comedian Roseanne Barr was over -- at least for this year. She had campaigned for the presidential nomination of the Green Party, but lost to progressive activist and physician Jill Stein on the first ballot when the party held its convention a few weeks ago in Baltimore. But like a bad penny, Roseanne just keeps turning up in the presidential race.

CNN is reporting that Roseanne was named the presidential candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party on Saturday in Los Angeles. Cindy Sheehan was named as her vice-presidential running mate. Roseanne said:
"Cindy and I are the ‘Throw the Bums Out’ ticket and the ‘Ballot Access’ ticket. The American people are sick and tired of this ‘lesser evil’ garbage they get fed every election year. Both the Democrats and the Republicans do the same evils once they’re in office."

The Peace and Freedom Party is a tiny left-wing party that is not even on the ballot in most states. In fact, it virtually doesn't exist outside the state of California. Even if the party's candidates were to win in every state where they are on the ballot (an impossibility), they wouldn't have anywhere near enough electoral college votes to win the presidency.

Frankly, I find this rather pathetic -- both for Roseanne and for the Peace and Freedom Party. I know the party is trying to use Roseanne's notoriety to try and increase the size and public awareness of the party. But the fact is that progressives and other leftists already have a viable alternative with many, if not all, of the same political positions -- the Green Party. The only thing this ridiculous nomination can do is further fractionalize an already struggling left wing in American politics.

I like both Roseanne and Cindy, and I respect what the Peace and Freedom Party wants to accomplish. But I urge all my fellow progressives to vote for Dr. Stein and the Green Party if you cannot stomach voting for the Democrats (who I'll admit are far from true progressive values). The left should not be splitting itself into many tiny groups. It should be working to make one viable and effective party promoting leftist values.

Death Claims Another American Hero

Another one of my heroes has died. Attorney Leonard Weinglass, 77, died on Wednesday in New York City. He was a victim of pancreatic cancer.

A lot of attorneys, probably most, get into that profession for money and prestige. Weinglass (pictured) was not one of those. As an ardent leftist and a true believer in justice and free speech, Weinglass spent his life defending those that the government was trying to punish and silence because of their political views.

Michael Krinsky, a partner at the law firm where Weinglass worked, said, "I always considered Lenny the modern-day Clarence Darrow. He was a lawyer who devoted himself to defending people, usually for political reasons. I think one of the reasons he was so effective with juries is they saw his decency and sincerity."

Among his more famous clients were Black Panthers (including Mumia Abu-Jamal), the Chicago 7 (Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, Lee Weiner, Abbie Hoffman, David Dellinger, Jerry Rubin, John Froines), Angela Davis, Kathy Boudin of Weather Underground, Anthony Russo and Daniel Ellsberg (charged with leaking the Pentagon Papers), and more recently the Cuban Five (charged with spying for Cuba).

Ellsberg said of Weinglass, "He wasn't drawn to making money. He was drawn to defending justice. He felt in many cases he was representing  one person standing against the state. He was on the side of the underdog. He was also very shrewd in his judgement of juries."

Hayden said, "Len was the best trial attorney I ever met. . .He exemplified the best qualities of a Jewish upbringing; he questioned everything. He was a funny man, a man of wisdom and passion who would throw himself into deeply unpopular causes because he believed in human rights."

I doubt that most people in America even know who Leonard Weinglass is or have ever heard of him. He cared much more about his clients that trying to make himself famous. But like Clarence Darrow, he was never afraid to stand alone in challenging the powers that be -- regardless of the consequences. He spent his life trying to make the world a better place for everyone.

America could use a whole lot more people with the brilliance, eloquence, and courage of Leonard Weinglass.

The Polanski Debacle

I had not planned to comment on the ongoing Roman Polanski mess. That's because for me, the story was over long ago. The man raped a 13 year-old girl. He even pled guilty to it in court. The fact that he then ran and avoided justice for many years changes nothing. He is a rapist and probably a pedophile.

But then a few idiots in Hollywood signed a letter supporting Polanski and asking for his release. I don't know why they did that -- probably because they are his friends. Others in Hollywood are speaking out against him. None of this matters, because he pled guilty to his crime.

If he were a plumber, farmer, teacher, policeman or even a clergyman, no one would be asking for his release. Everyone would be demanding he serve his time for his crime, and that's as it should be. Just because he has the ability to make good movies doesn't excuse his criminal act.

But then one Hollywood nut made a stupid statement, and I feel like I need to reply to it. Paul Peterson, a former child actor on the Donna Reed show, said there were many who would like to speak up but "They are afraid of the Hollywood power structure that is tilted distinctly to the left and plays favorites." What a load of crap!

Whether or not Polanski's supporters are leftists has nothing to do with their support of the man. I am a leftist, and so are many of my friends and acquaintances. I can assure you it is not a political principle of the left to be soft on rapists and molesters. If anything, it is just the opposite since most on the left believe in and support women's and children's rights.

Peterson's shot at the left was uncalled for and totally ridiculous. He should be ashamed of himself. Opposition to rape and child abuse and molestation is truly a bipartisan issue. Good people from both sides of the political spectrum can agree that these kinds of criminals should be severely punished.

Polanski raped a child. Now he needs to serve his time. This leftist has no problem with that at all.