Nate Silver, as always, has something useful and informative to say about the Occupy movement. After looking through hundreds of local media reports for global protests this past Saturday, he’s concluded that there were somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 protesters in the United States. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle had the largest protests. For a city-by-city breakdown of attendance last weekend, look at this graphic. Meanwhile, several European cities kicked our Yankee asses with hundreds of thousands of protesters each.
Silver floats the idea that it’s mainly nonpartisan liberals out there:
I suspect that more than anything, however, it reflects the politics of the protesters. Specifically, they tend to be more liberal than they are Democratic partisans. Take liberalism, subtract the Democratic Party, and the remainder might look something like Occupy Wall Street…
So perhaps the protesters are more ideologically minded than they are interested in partisan politics. In fact, they may be relatively disengaged from “politics as usual.” In a somewhat informal New York magazine survey of 100 protesters in Manhattan, only 39 percent reported having voted in the 2010 midterm elections.
All of this could create headaches for the Democratic Party — and for the protesters — if it tries to co-opt the Occupy movement.
Read the whole thing.
(It’s called “activating the electorate”, Fnarf, and–as you well know–historically proceeds about every democratic sea-change.)
@98, what? Who would have been Nixon? Goldwater? Your argument makes no sense. And I’m the one who’s supposed to be ignorant. For the record, it was Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat — a SOUTHERN Democrat — who signed the Civil Rights Act. Arguably the greatest act by a US president since Lincoln. If you think Nixon, had he won in 1960, would have signed it, you are out of your bloomin’ mind. Nixon is the one who picked up all those disaffected white southern voters who were “betrayed” by Johnson.
But again: the 1900s are over. The 1930s are over. The 1960s are over, more than forty years gone now. Fight 2011’s battles with 2011’s weapons.
@93 Exactly how is Obama ‘very much worse’ than Bush? Completely asinine. Did cosmic rays wipe out your memory or something? It is statements like this that are convincing me more and more that wide segments of the left are in fact just as witless as the tea party mob.
@99, Jude, I only wish I deserved the epithet. But it’s very kind of you to say it, and I don’t mind at all that it’s an insult. It’s a pleasure to argue with as thoughful and intelligent opponent as you. Dirac, too, I don’t have a problem with; I agree with most of what you say except most strenuously this one thing. Maybe I’m wrong and a glorious new era will ensue because of it. I doubt it though. None of you are wrong in your hearts; you’re just naive. There’s a reason I hang out here rather than some other places I could mention — I’d rather hang out with the naive than the jaded and bitter any old day. And I am well aware that many or most of you feel the same about me (i.e., why won’t the fucker just GO AWAY).
@100: I love it when people talk about “the protests of the ’60’s” and procede to only talk of the anti-war movement. Its outcomes are debatable, sure. However, one of the most successful social movements in history was in the same decade (the civil rights movement), but you failed to address that because it is impossible for you to discredit protest as THE key to its success. The SCLC organized a campaign of mass protests in the South in the Spring of ’63, focusing especially on Birmingham where they essentially shut the city down. (Yes, they did a LOT of occupying too, then they were called “sit-ins.”) By early June, JFK called for the Civil Rights Act.
@103: I mistakenly thought Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act after the ’64 election, it was before, which means it would have been Nixon, not Goldwater, that would/could have signed it. That’s all. My point still stands that it didn’t matter if the WANTED to. They had to. Johnson was a total bigot, by the way.
OuterCow: if you aren’t voting for Obama, and you’re not voting Republican, but you ARE voting, who are you voting for? Because, without knowing, it’s hard to say whether or not “Not Obama” = Nader.
If he has zero chance of winning, but enough support to ensure that Republicans choose the next several Supreme Court judges, then yes, in that case, “Not Obama”= Nader.
One of the worst things to happen to democracy in my lifetime is Citizens v. United. Take a look at who appointed the judges on each side of that, specifically, how the ones appointed by GWB decided. Justices appointed by Gore would not have let that piece of shit through.
But Gore would have been the same as GWB, right? That’s the line I’ve heard from every fucking Nader supporter.
You’re worried about your conscience? Please! How clean will it be if because of you – and your public “I’m not voting for Obama” broken record – Republicans pick the next few justices? I tell you: If I had voted for Nader, my guilty conscience would make me hang myself.
So, I plead with you: suck it up like the rest of us. It’s hard to vote for someone you hate, I know. I fucking hated Gore; the last thing I wanted was a low-IQ Christian blowhard in the white house. But I held my nose and voted for him anyway. And to this day I wish that fucking loser would have won.
@100: Furthermore, 40 years, 80 years, whatever, is not a long time at all in the course of history. “2011 tools” my ass, it’s the same as it ever was: people interacting with each other IN PERSON for the same cause. THAT is what you fail to comprehend, and why so many on this blog snark and sneer. You cannot think beyond a two-dimensional world.
Just FYI, the Bonus Army thing was in response to @27. Getting the bonus arguably wasn’t a huge social change, but it did happen in response to protests and the election of 1932 is credited to that to some degree. And yes, people WILL die if things don’t change–I don’t want that but I think non-violent civil disobedience will be necessary.
And I don’t think things will magically change, btw, but pushing this system from the right or center is not my function.
It’s the present, yep! Yes, it’s not 2000, or 1960s, or 1930s or 1880s. I think everyone here gets that. You wanted examples though. OWS will be what it is, whatever that is. Some people don’t vote. I won’t call them idiots for that. I won’t disparage somebody who votes third party. But I will challenge the notion that voting for the rightward drifting Dems will change it for the better. I don’t need to look too far in the past for that–just 5 years.
@91, etc… since I was invoked directly:
“your option is to either try to persuade your candidates and/or other voters that your positions are correct, or to SUCK IT UP.”
But if Fnarf hears you try to do the first, your options are reduced to “suck it up” (in all caps!).
It seems to me that your argument reduces to “you have to vote because I don’t believe in Democracy”. It’s quite a tantrum.
I’ll continue to engage with politics in my own way, you should continue to do it in yours. I think the correct sentiment is to hope the other’s voice isn’t silenced by faults in the system.
Fnarf @103: What are 2011-weapons? I am seriously curious, and if you say “vote” that means you don’t have any idea.
Fnarf @105: I’m glad you were not offended (not that I thought you would be) and I definitely don’t want you to go away..
@104: Bush never claimed he had the authority to order the murder of US citizens w/o any due process. That’s a pretty big fucking deal if the rule of law is something you care about. Also, except for perhaps solely the decision to no longer torture prisoners, Obama is worse than Bush on almost every civil liberties issue.
@108: Right now, Free Lunch, I’m not sure who I’ll be voting for for president in 2012. I haven’t looked into who any of the normal 3rd Parties are running, haven’t heard any names I like crop up yet, so I’ll look into it once the Repubs have a nominee, there might even be a OWS party nominee by then, who knows. I just can’t vote for him, Free Lunch. Not after he set the precedent that we don’t investigate torture. Not after he illegally ordered the assassination of a US citizen. The damage he is doing while he is in office outweighs the SCOTUS concerns for me. And it’s not like he’s appointing liberal paragons to the bench as it is. I fully expect to be stabbed in the back plenty by Kagan. The bigger issue to me is we need to end the duopoly, and the sooner I join that fight the better (2012 will be the first presidential election where I don’t vote D).
And no, I don’t think Gore would’ve been as bad as Bush, but since Gore actually got more votes in FL than Bush, I believe blame is very wrongly placed at the feet of Nader voters. It was the Supreme Court, already corrupt enough even before Bush II, that betrayed us, not those who voted for Nader.
And regarding Citizens United, while it is indeed a fantastically horrible ruling, it was pretty much the unofficial status quo before the ruling anyway. Citizens United just brought the problem further into the light. Our system was already broken before Citizens United, Citizens united just made it official.
Fnarf, I fucking vote, so stuff it in your know-it-all piehole. I am so sick of your white-boy comfort level making you think you have it all figured out. You are so narrow minded it’s unreal. You’re like The Economist- informative, but really only telling people what they always want to hear. You paint everything with such a broad brush, I am surprised you can even see any colors besides black and white.
I started a non-profit in 2003 to get young people to vote and I saw first-hand that voter awareness goes hand in hand with lack of participation.The fact of the matter is, I am allowed to see that I am not really given a choice when it comes to candidates. Black box voting made the whole voting system a joke in the 00s. And every citizen eventually becomes aware that they really don’t have a choice of people who will actually represent them.
I am also allowed to see that picking between a shit sandwich and a turd milkshake doesn’t mean I am not allowed to complain about being hungry.
@111, I’m sorry to hear that you don’t know how to write a letter or an email, or use a telephone, or attend a political meeting. Or read my post; what I really said was “you have to vote because it’s the only thing that stands a chance of holding off the right wing from total victory”.
@112, will you accept “comment on blogs”? The answer is really “communicate with people who DON’T agree with you”, counter to bhowie’s assertion. You need to change their minds. Protests don’t work because they’re scripted. And yeah, vote.
@113, you are stupid and dangerous. The alternative to the duopoly is the monopoly. If the Republicans can win again just four years after Bush, after the series of debacles the brain-dead wing of their party has trampled the scenery, the Democrats will never recover. And a more progressive Democratic Party is an even less successful one. But then, being clumsy and short-sighted and stupid and counterproductive and damaging while trying to do good is pretty typical Democrat behavior, actually (and I am one).
@107, you are impossibly wrong about whether Nixon would have signed the Civil Rights Act. And of course Johnson was a bigot — but he was OUR bigot, and he made a famously brave decision, for which he gets attacked to this day from both left and right. As for the civil rights movement, in that case you had your sit-ins and so forth, but what really made the difference was dogs and firehoses and Medgar Evers and four little girls in a church. The injustice there was perfect and media-ready — a little girl in white trying to go to school while angry rednecks shouted obscenities at her. The clarity of justice in that instance was impossible to ignore on TV, though it had been ignored for a century. Do you know what the Westlake protesters look like on TV? That’s who you are having a conversation with.
It also helped having the greatest orator in American history, at least in the recording era, on their side. Analogy fail.
@114, so what’s your alternative? You say “every citizen eventually becomes aware that they really don’t have a choice of people who will actually represent them”, so what then? Violent overthrow? Is that where you want to go? Good luck with that.
If you’re just complaining for the sake of complaining, then fine. Go to it. Don’t pretend it matters, though. No one is watching.
@112, my answer was stupid and too quick. The answer is “play the media”. Getting on TV with a sign that makes a quick point about an aspect of income inequality from a sympathetic member of the working class is good; getting on TV by jumping on the back of a cop, or standing in the rain in a black hoodie with a bandana over your face, or dressed as a sea turtle, or any of the other bad theater pieces, is bad. It’s as simple, and as difficult as that.
No Fnarf, I was not making an analogy. You drew the wrong conclusion. You stated earlier that protests have never accomplished anything, I used the civil rights movement as an example of why you are wrong. I have no idea if the folks at Westlake are on to something and I would not have the audacity to compare the occupiers to the freedom riders.
Your bit about the media was a part of it, sure, but struggle was the whole of it. Besides, a life made by strategic rather than moral choices is no life at all. You cannot comprehend that. Your loss.
Don’t pretend that your head is brimming with solutions. Case in point, is that you can only offer violent overthrow as an alternative to making voters aware that they don’t have many choices. No, my alternative is not violent overthrow, jesus fucking christ. You might think that way, but most people do not. Nice try with the attempt to put words in my mouth, though.
And no one is watching? No one is listening? Do you think the entire world is as apathetic as Fnarf? Actually, scratch that. You’ve been listening and watching here in nearly every thread. Exactly which demographic do you misguidedly believe you speak for? Not that I really care, but I’m sure the answer will amuse those of us whom you wrongly assume to know everything about.
So, here you hedge, OuterCow, by saying Citizens vs. United didn’t matter because it would have happened anyway. But you concede it wouldn’t have happened under Gore. I don’t see those statements as consistent.
And your comment that Bush wouldn’t have won without a conservative SCOTUS – well, I had to force may jaw closed with my hand on that one. I don’t think I need to elaborate there.
Presidents last eight years, tops. But SC justices shape the landscape for a decades. And while you’re going through your litany of complaints about Obama, ask yourself how much of that would have been nullified – rather than ignored or supported – by a liberal bench.
@118, TV is the political weapon of 2011? Your creativity is stunning. I think even the Westlake people are doing better than that, certainly the Zuccotti park crowd is. And if not, your recipe for political success has still expanded to include quite a lot of activities unrelated to voting–right up to holding witty signs.
@118- So your point is (in the end) that good protest is good and bad protest is bad?
OK. I agree.
Why all the insults towards the protesters before? And why expect Occupy to have accomplished anything tangible in one month? This isn’t a sitcom, things take time.
FL, I don’t think you completely understood what OC said.
@91″ no, why don’t you educate me? Oh, that’s right, because you’re soft in the head. Trust me, sunshine, I know plenty about what I’m talking about. “
You don’t even know (or you deny?) the basics of labor and civil right history as shown by your ignorance about the role of popular movements in bringing about political change. How am I supposed to fill the complete vacuum in your head within the space and time I am willing to give to these comments? Why don’t you pick up a book on the topic like Piven’s on the unemployed in the 1930’s to get an idea of what it took for the political establishment to save capitalism from itself.
“Direct democracy? Terrific, as long as you live in a country with fewer than 100 people. In the US, “direct democracy” means Tim fucking Eyman: no thanks. And it is still about voting, isn’t it?”
Nobody mentioned direct democracy as a model for a nation or a region. I gave you an example of a democracy that involved both voting and direct participation to a movement/association/etc, which is the basis for an informed and participating citizenry.
“I am not factually wrong.”
You claimed the public wasn’t for policies further left than advocated by Obama, which is false as shown by polls that show the public consistently on Obama’s left (btw, you somehow failed to answer my question as to why Obama would be campaigning to his left if people weren’t there on most issues). You also claimed that popular participatory movements were useless and that only voting mattered, which is obviously false as was pointed out to you in numerous examples by several people here and which you failed to address. Your not answering on point doesn’t mean the argument doesn’t exists; it only shows that your debating ethics aren’t what they should be if you want to be credible.
@124 – Yes, I know. I get “corrupt” confused with “conservative” all the time. I’d say, “You Say Tomato, I say Tomato,” but that doesn’t come across so well in print.
What frustrates me is that OC’s main complaint seems to be the growing, unfettered power of the executive branch. Well, shoot: If only there were some OTHER branch of government designed specifically to keep that in check.
So, go ahead, do everything you can to make sure we get the next several SCOTUS nominees controlled by Republicans. Trust me – a pill is harder to swallow when swallowing it takes 30 years.
I have said it once, I’ll say it again … and again likely …. the problem is the voters, not the corporations. Point the fingers at yourselves. If you want change, vote for it, otherwise you’re just a bunch of wannabe hippies … I mean “drum circles”? Com on.
@121 Just in case you’re still following this thread,
I didn’t say “Citizens United didn’t matter because it would have happened anyway”. What I was saying was that the problem of corporations and money having not just undue, but a controlling interest in our elections, was the state of things before Citizens United. Citizens United just exacerbated a problem that was already off the rails.
And regarding your jaw, Gore’s lawyers also should have pushed for a full statewide recount in Florida. Still not the fault of Nader voters. If Gore wanted those Nader votes badly enough, he and his pollsters and campaign strategists knew where they were long before election day.
I care about a liberal bench as well, Free Lunch, but looking at Obama’s actions, his clear violations of constitutional law, and appointing blank-slate Kagan, I don’t have the faith in him to champion that position. It’s my opinion that the only way to get real liberals on the bench is to get a real liberal in the White House. And that’s not Obama.
@116: The future is not yet written. We must try to make this a better world, not just a slightly less evil one. I won’t begrudge you your dogmatic pessimism if you don’t begrudge me my hope. Let us try to prove you wrong, Fnarf. We deserve that chance.
@129: *Ok, totally used the word “begrudge” wrong there. Change the “won’t” to “will” and take out the “don’t” in that sentence.
Time to burn and loot a few mansions.
@128
How is allowing Romney or, god forbid, Perry to win the election getting a “real” liberal in the White House?
Face reality. There is no fantasy white horse liberal candidate out there that stand even the slimmest chance better than Obama in 2012.
Can you imagine the type of Genghis Khan nightmare judge the GOP will put on the SCOTUS? And you’re complaining about Kagan?
Waiting until 2016 is going to be way too late. The damage will have been done.
Fnarf is completely right here.
@132 Oh, yeah a Genghis Khan like John Paul Stephens? It’s possible.
I swear, the only possibility for people is to play the fear card and I don’t want to be afraid. So, if Obama’s what we’re going to get, fine, I’d honestly rather see the system crash faster then. We might as well face our destruction and see if we can rebuild sooner rather than later.
So, in other words it would be better for things to be more completely ruined than they are now because then things will be even more awesome when we completely rebuild? Jesus, do you ever listen to yourself?
The way to make things better is to make them better. If you can’t accept moderate, incremental improvements then you will never get a single thing that you want. This idea that letting it all burn so that the people will “wake up” is pure fantasy. If our system crashes it will not be replaced with one more to your liking.
Do you ever happen to listen to your didactic nonsense Proteus and wonder, “Hey, maybe I’m a projecting asshole?” Because you are. And I love the certainty that you have. You’re unwilling to live with ambiguity, too afraid. The way to make things better is to make things better, good job! Thanks for that!
I have no such “fantasies.” I have deep hope but I am also very pragmatic and realist. And my realism tells me this country is fucked. I’ll even give you that It may turn around if some series of miracles happens (I mean who’s closing their eyes and dreaming that we’ve had ANY incremental reforms for civil liberties or finance?), but please spare me you preachy nonsense and holier-than-thou tone. I’ve had about enough of ignorant assholes posing as wizened concerned grown-up realistic adults. You’re nothing of the sort and it does nothing to help your argument.
Go fuck yourself Proteus–go fuck yourself right in your ear.
@135: As in, as opposed to letting things get worse so that later, they can get better. Which is exactly what you just advocated.
But since you brought it up, let’s talk tone: How many ways have you found to tell anybody who thinks Obama is in any way preferable to McCain or Bush/Cheney that they are simply delusional? That anybody who votes for Democrats is either stupid or willfully making things worse? So you’re the super-smart political analyst who’s seen through all the lies, man, and you’re here to clear up all those naive ideas we had about how we could make a difference by participating in politics as it is and not how it ought to be. So jaded. So world-weary and insightful. Thanks for knocking the scales from my eyes!
Historically, progressive politics has always been lousy with this problem of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I know I’ve heard this bullshit line a million times, and I’m tired of nodding and smiling when I hear it from people who should know better.
@136 My tone? “I know I’ve heard this bullshit line a million times,” Fuck you, wizened shriveled asshole.
Can’t help if since people are willing to choose delusional tribalism that I’d add a little dose of reality as a fucking MINORITY on this blog. Yeah, it’s hard to let the lies slide through or superficial nonsense pass for politics, so excuse me fuckface for not toeing the party line like people who’ve heard some argument so many times. Why smile through that you passive aggressive prick? Afraid still?
Don’t put words in my mouth asshole, never said you’re dumb for voting for Democrats. You’re trapped, that’s for sure.
How about letting the mediocre being the enemy of the Reaganism? I know, it’s DREAMING!
@137 Oh, and never claimed to be a political analyst. Just a concerned citizen in a downward spiraling police state on the verge of ecological, economic, and political destruction. My use of the word “destruction” previously was hyperbole. I was referring to the Democratic Party, but whatevs, call me naive and full of shit. If we have incremental reforms, my actual fear IS many people will die.
This “progressive” notion that growth or progress doesn’t have its limits–that the economy will keep growing, that we can kick the can down the road on our wars and environmental destruction, that we can ignore war crimes and not realize consequences from that–it’s just not going to work out well for us.
@134
Not wanting things to get worse is great but the evidence already points toward things getting worse. There is no moderate incremental improvement in most areas. On the contrary, the neoliberal race to the bottom goes on unabated with the complicity of many Democrats including Obama and that of his predecessors for the last 40 years. Giving another blank check to 3rd way Dems is a recipe for more of the same.
For the record, Kagan dissented on United, just like Gore’s TWO nominees would have done. So, all of you Nader idealists who voted your conscience: how does your conscience feel now? If you haven’t learned your lesson, well – fuck – you’re too far-gone to help.
Yeah, tell yourself it was the Supreme Court and not you. I’d be grasping at straws myself.
@138, @139: If I were concocting a perfect troll to hang out on blogs and convince liberals to lie down and give up, it would look pretty much exactly like what you’re doing. It’s all “look, I’m on your side, but give up because politics is a sham.”
I don’t necessarily think you are a troll, Dirac — dissolving into apopleptic profanity makes you seem more like you’re probably a real person who’s just too wound up about it. But in the end it works out the same — you’re counseling despair. I see no great difference between your outlook and things I hear Tea Party people saying about how the government is corrupt from top to bottom so we should all just stop paying taxes. Either way if enough people hew to your line of thinking a giant crash seems inevitable. (And when it happens you can take pride in issuing an accurate, if self-fulfilling prophecy.)
And, seriously? “We’re fucked?” “Evidence already points toward things getting worse?” This passes for insight? Who isn’t saying that? Ron Paul is saying that, LaRouche too. Hell, Glenn Beck says that. Any fool can say that.
Honestly, the idealism charge is baseless to me. Let’s be clear: I NEVER wanted a pony. I didn’t vote for Nader. But so what if people did or do? People in the Democratic party really need to get over that.
I wish I could diagram it. Your people suck. Therefore blame the people that don’t want to give a pass to your people. Makes perfect sense! I just don’t see how unfettered positive feedback to something effects change (and please, I’m just talking generally about the presidency–I don’t need any bullshit about how I want to completely “ruin EVERYTHING, ZOMG”). But if you want to do that fine. Maybe even the Dems will have some come to Jesus moment magically without any consequences. But I don’t blame you for extrajudicial death warrant, the lack of meaningful financial reform, or all the wonderful incremental things I’m supposed to SUCK IT UP and be grateful for. I really don’t. Pinning the Bush Administration on some Nader voters in Florida is fucking weak and basically authoritarian.
@141 “If I were concocting a perfect troll to hang out on blogs and convince liberals to lie down and give up, it would look pretty much exactly like what you’re doing. “
Funny, this is exactly what I thought about you.
@140
Did you notice how Democrats promptly proved that Nader was right about them when they gave Bush most everything he wanted?
What bush got with at most 51 GOP senators:
– no contest of a blatantly stolen 2000 election
– blank check to do whatever he wanted in Afghanistan
– John Ashcroft nomination
– Iraq war resolution
– Repeated Iraq funding resolutions
– 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
– Patriot Act
– Alito
– John Roberts
– Medicare Part D
etc
@141 Expanding on that…what you’re doing is engaging someone who is your confederate in a totally antagonistic way–my interactions with you in particular have made me want to disengage. You say, I’m calling people stupid for voting for Dems. No such comments were made. If you want to read in to things, OK. If pointing out the truth, which many are unaware of, is trolling then call me a troll.
Yep, I did get worked up. When someone wants to be an asshole about a genuine belief, starts impugning my character because I profess belief there are some pretty fundamental problems we’re facing and barely anyone is talking about them or addressing them, I get pretty fucking profane. Consider that this is how people on the ‘disengaged left’ feel and acting the way you or Fnarf have is not going to endear them to the cause of civic engagement. You say you aren’t concerned about me converting me, but even your own argument against me can be used: other people may have my perspective too.
I regret that you think I’m counseling dispair, which I find to be bullshit. Do you need some data on how things are fundamentally not so great? Because there’s a plethora of issues that are existentially threatening, not just requiring incremental 200 year plans. These are emergent situations to me. “Putting aside childish things” as partisans like to talk about, also requires facing directly the *real* problems, not the political minutiae of the day–the football game between blue and red.
I’m genuinely very sorry for disparaging you or anyone else. I’m usually at least dispassionate in person but I did get worked up about this too much. I need to take an extended break from Slog honestly.
@141 “look, I’m on your side, but give up because politics is a sham.”
My guess is I likely have been around for longer than you have and I have never given up but I have also never given in to the fantasy that anything positive would happen without Democrats actually delivering on the rhetoric they campaign on. Handing another blank check to the usual Democrats amounts to giving in to the 40+ years long race to the bottom (did you notice how they voted on the FTAs last week?). If you were to argue for challenging Obama in primaries and holding him accountable before calling to vote for him, we may be able to agree on something.
Eric Cantor of all people changed his tone in two days–this is what that mass of non-voting people did. I’m sure folks will argue this has no consequence.
http://thehill.com/video/house/187799-ca…
@146: Well, I’ve been around long enough to remember Carter (but not to vote for him.) And you know, liberals called him a disappointment and a hopeless sell-out too. Probably the last president with any plan to shift our energy economy away from fossil fuels before irreversible damage on a massive scale was a fait accompli. Certainly the last president before the advent of the modern deficit state.
Yep, Carter was a sell-out and a huge disappointment and might just as well have been a Republican. Ask any good liberal circa 1979. After all, he gave aid to El Salvador. Or some other reason. And you know what? There are some good points to be made. But when I realize that we had a chance to elect a president who was actually attempting to stand up to the oil cartels thirty years ago and good card-carrying liberals couldn’t be bothered, it boggles my mind. Meanwhile, conservatives patiently showed up to vote, ran candidates for school boards, developed a national movement from the ground up, and steadily won ground in battle after battle, with the determination of people who believe that even a lost cause is worth fighting for because their reward awaits them in the hereafter.
And every choice we’ve been offered since then has inched to the right. Politicians learned the lessons we taught them — don’t be a Jimmy Carter. Be a Ronald Reagan. America loves a winner. And liberals, apparently, love to lose.
@148 Carter’s stance on energy policy was his redeeming quality and he should be acknowledged for it. Besides his pursuing the politics of empire in Central America (he appears to have mellowed with age on this front), he also cut social programs, started the deregulation of the financial sector, and oversaw the deregulation of trucking and airlines. It proved to be the beginning of the end of pensions and fair compensation for labor. In fact, some neoliberals claim that Carter fundamentally accomplished more toward unregulated capitalism than Reagan ever did. Carter’s anti-labor policies enabled right wing populism (for example teamsters made a deal with Reagan to delay Carter’s deregulation policies in exchange for electoral support) so don’t blame the left for pointing out the obvious.
This one is for Fnarf:
“A new survey shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the self-styled Occupy Wall Street protests that not only have disrupted life in Lower Manhattan but also in Washington and cities and towns across the U.S. and in other nations. Some 59 percent of adults either completely agree or mostly agree with the protesters, while 31 percent mostly disagree or completely disagree; 10 percent of those surveyed didn’t know or refused to answer.”
http://nationaljournal.com/daily/occupy-…
@140- If all you Gore assholes had voted Nader, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
That knife cuts both ways. Plus I voted Nader in a district that went to Gore, so it didn’t fucking matter. What does matter is that rather than realizing they were losing their base and making an apathetic voting population more apathetic, the Democrats decided they needed to run even further towards the center and when given power have chosen to govern towards the Right.