Sawant is a foolish egotist with poor judgment.
You know I support Sawant as my council member mostly because I like how she is throwing gravel in the smooth running gears of the over-development machine and its 'density at all costs' enablers. Kind of ludicrous that she is leading any protests against Trump however. I also wonder how many of these people participating in these protests actually voted for Stein, or none of the above. I can't imagine that a majority of our professional protesters here were on board with voting for the 'lesser evil'.
I think you are being way too kind, but then, you are a kind person.

I think Sawant has made a choice to try to make herself the face of Trump opposition. She benefits tremendously from Trump voters' lack of gratitude for her help by forcing Democratic party lefties to jump to her defense when they attack her. Now the "mainstream media" like the Seattle Times can put her on the front page as the face of anti-Trump activities. You are right though, she should take responsibility and step aside. Instead, it looks like she sees this as an awesome opportunity for building her party. Of course, this will drive down participation of regular Democrats. Thus, her voter suppression continues in another form.

In an interesting twist, Westneat's "Sawant is an unprincipled hyprocritic" piece itself took the opportunity too paint Sawant as leader of the more " in your face" anti-Trump actions by not mentioning any other leader people or groups in the piece, which ultimately was his call for anti-Trump actions to be old fashioned letters to the editor and GOTV.

America has got to the point where our historical memory has now taken another jump - down to at most a two year window already, it appears now to be about five days or less. Dave Chappelle gets a pass for his voter suppression actions the week before the election. I can't see why Sawant won't get a pass.
Yup. I liked Sawant locally as an opposition to corporate liberalism. Nationally, as opposition to Trumpublicanism, she's less than useless.
Dear Dan Savage (or possibly Tim Keck),

This is a poor imitation of Mudede's usual contrarian overly complicated rambling. That you chose to suck the cock of Danny Westneat is the biggest sign that this was forced upon the man.

If you're going to be wrong, he wrong under your own name.

I thought it was "poor form."
I don't have much of an opinion on Sawant -- since I don't live in Seattle and I just read about her in regards to selected issues here on "The Stranger" -- but I disagree with the notion that protests don't need a leader of any kind right now, that we need to step back and let them "define themselves." (Also, it's offensively ageist to say they're just about/for "the youth"). I think a leader (as charismatic as Trump) is EXACTLY what the national protests need (but not Clinton: she was damaged goods way more than a year ago). We need someone fresh to rise up and absorb emotions and project a unified stance the way Trump did for the right. IT'S THE MESSANGER, NOT THE MESSAGE, THAT COUNTS IN A PROPOGANDA WAR. (And even if our side is "right," that's what we're engaged in now). With no leader, these protests are TOO DIFFUSE and EASILY DISMISSED by the same demographic that surprised us by swinging away from the polls and electing Trump.
Gotta pop some more popcorn: love the regressive left eating their own while the country is about to be totally flushed down the toilet.

This shit is better than anything on TV!!
On the one hand: this is a serious emergency, and I think there's a strong case for suspending pre-11/8 grievances and wiping the slate clean for anyone who sees clearly the horror we now face and is willing to work together against it--leftists, liberals, centrists, libertarians, principled conservatives, whatever.

On the other hand: Her grotesque, self-aggrandizing false equivalence, from a position of actual influence, and not just in Seattle--in the service of protecting and refining her "too cool for the two party system" brand--was among the most cynical and reckless political performances I've seen. I'd be happy to let it go in a heartbeat if she admitted and apologized for her error with any modicum of sincerity. Absent that, it'd feel pretty gross to be part of any protest she was actually leading.
One of the best things you've written, Cholly, and I couldn't agree more. I hope I'm, I hope I am dead wrong, but I see at best, uninspired, at worst, very sad times ahead.
we need the people bombing 7 countries (including 3 it actively helped destroy) to be the face against fascism. because, you know, chicks and stuff.
This is what the politics of petulance has wrought.

And the loony left is incapable of learning from it.
Let me get this straight.

Dave Chappelle saying Hillary Clinton wasn't 'coin worthy', after voting for Hillary Clinton, is voter suppression;


Dan Savage spending months trashing Bernie supporters and Millennials isn't?

So a black man speaking his mind is similar to the sort of voter suppression that went on in the Deep South in the sixties, is that what you're telling me?

I guess this makes it perfectly clear. The Stranger is nothing more than propaganda supporting corporatist Democrats.

Personally, I think Sawant's been incredibly consistent. She may be radically idealistic, but that is a representation of her constituents - a lot of self-identified socialists and liberals were staunchly against Hillary.

While I think actively campaigning against Clinton once Trump became a real threat was a poor choice, especially in other states where it might actually matter, but let's be clear that it was a political choice. And who, if not Clinton herself, would better understand political compromise? (*fracking* *cough, cough*)

Who should say who should or shouldn't lead anti-Trump protests anyway? Weird stance. Who gives a fuck? Let those who actually show up and motivate people lead them.

If there's a post-election blame-athon, I'd sooner point fingers at the 'democratic' Democratic primary where the popular votes of constituents and personal pleas fell on def ears of our elected officials and ladder climbers wanting to align with the big pantsuit around town and the campaign dollars that promised.

I think we need to work together here, we have bigger problems than bickering about people we mostly agree with.
Using a Danny Westneat article as a talking point already invalidates your argument.
Dunno @8: We need someone fresh to rise up and absorb emotions and project a unified stance the way Trump did for the right. IT'S THE MESSANGER, NOT THE MESSAGE, THAT COUNTS IN A PROPOGANDA WAR.

Setting aside the creative spelling, I'm reading this observation and it's dawning on me, how about just replacing Kshama with Katniss?
#1 - You're correct. And in fact, I deplore anybody that argued against Hillary after she won the primary from Bernie. I feel that those idiots helped put the KKK in the whitehouse.
Time for leaderless, horizontal politics.
This is why OWS didn't align with any party politics.

I only hope that anti-Trump protests can somehow send a clear message of economic support to devastated rural counties (while also vehemently opposing racist fuckwits).

I think it's time for alternative currencies to step into the gap that Global Capitalism has left in our social webs.
@9 - You're also correct. But it's sad the rational moderates amongst us -we've become an extremist nation- will get flushed along with the cannibalistic likes of Sawant and her ilk.
@19 - We have a republican white house, republican congress (house and senate) and a soon to be ultra conservative majority on the US Supreme court. These are not just normal republicans, but they include the religious right (christians) and the white supremacist. Somehow 'sending a clear message of economic support' is so fucking subtle to what they are going to do to us with wielding their nazi cum fucking gansta bat to the likes that you will have never seen before in your lifetime. Hang onto your hat on the way to the border. 'sending a clear message' ain't in their fucking dictionary.
@8, your post could be read as supporting the rise of Hitler. And yes, I've Godwinned the discussion, but still.

All of you applauding Murray's statement that Seattle is still a sanctuary city even though it will mean no federal funds apparently don't realize what that will really mean. Murray could have better just continue operating Seattle as a sanctuary without waving the flag in the face of the Trump bastards, who will surely take notice. That notice will mean no more funds for homelessness efforts, and people losing their rent vouchers, and a lot of other misery.
@22 You have little room to talk considering you were actively promoting Trump back in April as the candidate who would lose.

I can't believe you just compared Ksama Sawant to Hitler. What the fuck is wrong with you?!!?
@23, what the fuck is wrong with you? Read exactly what @8 was describing again. If you can read, that is.
@17, sorry I musplld a word

@22, Your Hitler invocation is ridiculous (especially considering the quality of the president-elect I'm saying we need to position such a person against). Did I say, "We need a leader to represent our views that Jews should be deported and killed, that neighboring lands should be taken by force, and dissenters within the acceptable ethnicity should be jailed and/or killed, along with the gypsies and the homosexuals"? No, I did not, so I can only conclude that you were trolling.

The fact remains that diffuse, disparate protests with amorphous messages and action strategies may keep getting press, but their overall impact on the national state of affairs will be weak at best and, more likely, all the more reason for many of the portion of America who voted for Trump to think even less of "whiny, elitist, hypocritical SJWs" -- unless there is a person (or persons) who is A) effective at staying in the public eye, and B) able to distill what many will (and are) dismissing as annoying white noise into pithy sound bites that can't be ignored and that enter the national conversation. This could be a politician (an Obama-type) or a non-politician (an MLK-type) or some kind of group (as long as there's consistency and simplicity).

It's crazy-making to me that the left did not seem to learn the main lesson of Trump's success: His supporters put more importance in what he REPRESENTED than in what he literally said (and in his scandals). I'm not at all saying the left should stop "saying" all the usual lefty things (and avoiding scandals). My point is that we need to accept the PROJECTION FACTOR in politics. (Remember 2008 Obama and "Hope"?) Potential converts to a cause cannot project their own needs onto a roiling, amorphous mass; only onto something singular.
Jesus God please please please STOP making fucking predictions. You don't fucking know what the fuck is going to happen. Nobody fucking knows. But whatever happens it will probably suck balls. I'll go out on a limb there.

Don't predict shit. Be true to yourself. At least when whatever shit goes down that was going to go down you will know that you're weren't fronting the whole time.
@24 The post could also be describing Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, and any number of other charismatic leaders who led protests for a purpose in a war of propaganda. You jumped to Hitler.

But, what do I expect for somebody who has been pushing for Trump for months.
Pushing Trump? What on earth are you talking about. But never mind; you are, after all, who you are.

@28 From your history on April 23:

You're all wasting your anger on Trump. We need him to be the Republican nominee because he will no doubt do something (or many somethings) during the campaign to doom himself. Cruz, on the other hand, is as smart as he is evil and could conceivably win.

At the same time you were shitting on Sanders supporters and saying that his campaign was fraying.

I blame assholes like you for this mess.
At least this is the last "advice" column for Mudede; if Sawant is establishment and so too he is. And it is a boon to progressives and quasi-socialists that only kids with no leadership experience will be given voice. If you can't beat 'em, give up. Remember how youth support of Sanders was his defining feature and how that was treated? Thank gooness the Democrats who actually lost to Trump(!) aren't at fault (just the left Mudede lied about supporting), because wow no referendum on them at all.
"No one will want to elect people who failed to see, and realistically respond to, the real and present danger of Trump."

Wouldn't that be, first the Clinton campaign who used their contacts in the media to promote Trump as a 'pied piper' candidate?
Wouldn't that be the Clinton campaign that, despite all their millions and support in the media, failed to see the plight of rural and rust belt voters left behind?

Wouldn't that be the Clintons, Obama, the rest of the establishment that are now trying to normalize Trump and call for a 'peaceful transfer'?

While I don't agree that Clinton and Trump are the same, I would say that they are both my enemy. I'd be protesting both, for different reasons. I'm glad for the protests and hope they grow, and cause enough attention and disruption, that others opposing Trump are buoyed so that they too may find ways to oppose Trump. Maybe an EPA field worker will be emboldened to be a whistleblower when regulations are cut or not enforced. Maybe Trump could be dissuaded from his appointment of Bannon. Maybe the KKK won't feel like they've won something.

It is right to rebel. Grow the resistance.
Socialist Alternative was calling for marches, protests, and actions against Trump since early spring. Part of the reason why people fought so hard for Bernie Sanders is because we knew that Clinton couldn't pull it through. SA has a presence in Washington State (which I noticed Clinton won handily btw) and a few other left cities. Its impossible that a call against the two big parties by this organization 'caused' Clinton to lose. She did that all on her own.

Fun watching the local dems try to pick apart the socialists once again.
SA is the most organized group willing to do something right now. They need to do more not less. The time has passed for wait and see. Let more organizations rise and confront Trump... but the force against Trump wont be and can't be a monolithic campaign. The internet has changed that. More groups. More action. More solidarity. Not less.
@32 and @33 You campaign against the only person who could beat Trump in this election and now you want us to join you as having the answers? Hey, even if I was willing to accept all the suffering involved in wishing for social and economic collapase so the socialist left can step in to pick up the pieces, climate change needs attention now, but Sawant just didn't give a fuck. She could have even stood to the side, but she picked a side. No right wingers were going to listen to her, and she knows that, so when she told people thinking of voting for Clinton not to vote for Clinton, she knew she was helping Trump. She got her wish, and now I'm supposed to join your fantasist celebration? Hey, if she doesn't want to soil herself compromising with even the center left at the national level, then why is she such a hypocrite that she stays on the city counsel? Why doesn't she resign?
@14 I see you too are happy with the outcome of the election. Some people were able to put aside their deep antipathy or anger at corporate security state Dems like Obama and Clinton, because it was obvious a Trump presidency was not just an unusual serious threat to the well being of ordinary people in this country but also a threat to the planet, because of the time crunch on climate change. Obama and Clinton even carried out a final Democratic Party rehabilitation of Arch-criminal Henry Kissenger, but, although I felt that as a deep kick in the guts insult, I don't take any pleasure their defeat given the obvious price. I'm kind of assuming you will tell yourself some lie or other down the line, but if you are honest with yourself a couple three years from now, I doubt you will find it was worth the price just to get in some late season holier-than-thou shots at Clinton's character. None of you people went after Obama the way you have gone after Clinton - as if she was some new kind of Dem, rather than just a regular old Dem. Misogynists or dupes of 30 years of GOP repetition? I figure it's a combination of both.
Am I the only one who thinks we woke up in a new world on November 9th and none of this matters? Yes, I was a Bernie delegate to my state convention, no, I wouldn't swerve if I suddenly found Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the path of my car, yes, I voted for Hillary reluctantly in the end. That may have been the last free election we'll ever see.

The corporate, hawkish DLC's twenty-year run is over. Bernie has the highest profile in the Democratic party right now as we try to rebuild. All this score-settling makes us look ridiculous and wastes the energy we need to keep Trump from making America hate again.
After the fizzling out of Occupy, and the consolidation of power under the Tea Party label, it's sad to see the Mudede propose a regression back to leaderless, unfocused, and laughably ineffective style of protest that netted the left absolutely nothing.

SA is an organization (in full disclosure, I am a member) that is out in the streets giving people a way to use their numerical and political power to create positive change. The Democratic Party has already capitulated and is asking for "good-faith" when dealing with the new administration (except Harry Reid, to his credit). Not only is this a mistake based solely on the political promises of Trump and a Rupublican-controlled Congress, but especially in light of how the Republicans treated Obama from his very first day, this attempt at finding a middle-ground is pathetic.

It takes organizational strength to mount protests, sit ins, and fight what will surely be a horrifically regressive right-wing agenda, and if the Democrats won't mobilize the people, why would the Stranger use its influence to undermine the only political party that's fighting for what they agree with?
@37 The SA campaigned against Clinton, whose only practical opposition was Trump. This means that, as a political strategy, you all preferred a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency. You got your wish. You didn't have the guts or organizational tenacity to believe you could build up support without collapsing the status quo. You got your wish for a "horrifically regressive right-wing agenda" to use as a tool for building your profile, but you don't have the guts to state clearly that you believe a Trump presidency is a good thing - for you.

I didn't agree with her on a lot of things, but Clinton didn't lose on policy. She lost on the drip drip drip of innuendo that led people to believe a lot of stupid shit, and, even worse, to believe there was something indefinably negative on the character side that made her different from Obama or any other national Dem, when she is very much like Obama politically. I wish she HAD lost on policy, because that would be something we could work with. Instead, we have you and Donald Trump. Sheesh.
@37 You can read, so you know that Mudede wasn't saying there should be no leaders or that no leaders would be a good thing. He was suggesting that your "Fearless Leader", and some others, maybe didn't have the legitimacy to honorably claim the anti-Trump mantle, given that she happily used her well-deserved national status as a successful $15/hr crusader as a megaphone to help Trump's campaign.
@38 She did lose on policy. And trustworthiness. She didn't have a solid ground for her new policies because she was part of the Republican Lite White House in the 90s, and she didn't have trustworthiness to sell the sham because of her email server and Tim Kaine and Obama.

But you don't want to hear that because it means the DNC is deaf and dumb on a national level.
So giving one's opinion on an election counts as 'voter suppression'? Please. And so what if the progressive Democrats cut ties to the 'radical left', as you call them? What ties were there in the first place? Next to none! I don't think many 'radical leftists' are looking for the support of the Democratic Party, a tool of big business, either. Trump and Hillary differ in many important ways, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone coherent on the Left who supported Trump over Hillary, besides the idiotic accelerationists. But the fact remains that Trump and Hillary are close to the same on a great many issues, particularly economic ones.

Let's also not forget that even if Trump deports 3 million people, Obama has deported something like 2.3 or 2.4 million, more than any President in history before him. The campaign Donald Trump ran was a classic right populist one, one that very effectively directed the fears of the white working and lower-middle classes in this country (incomes up to around $90k/yr especially) against those folks in society who are worse off than them. Hillary Clinton did little to assuage these fears or to provide an alternative analysis of this demographic's troubles, and in a climate where people are extremely jaded and cynical about our status quo, this was a horrible failure on her part.

Socialists don't necessarily view electoral politics as a particularly valuable tool in fighting capitalism, particularly not at the present stage when we have no broad-based party of the Left in America. I suspect this is what you're referring to when you say they're 'unrealistic about the political process'. Sawant (and more generally many socialists) didn't say Clinton and Trump were "exactly the same". The question is whether or not their differences were enough to justify a vote for Clinton. Especially in Washington state, I think this is still up for debate.

Socialist Alternative's membership all over the country has been ballooning since the Trump election. Whether or not the public is driven back into the arms of the Democrats by this result is a question of how activists choose to move forward and of what sorts of analyses are presented to the population at large.

Letting protests 'define themselves' is a nice concept, but pretty much always leads to their failure. These protests aren't going to accomplish anything in the short term, but they present a remarkable opportunity to engage with righteously indignant citizens galvanized into action.
@41 Yeah, I see you are loving this - "a remarkable opportunity."
@42 I'm not loving this at all and I resent that you would suggest that. I fear for my undocumented and LGBT friends and what this means for them. I'm very deeply concerned about the environmental future of our planet. This doesn't preclude an understanding and exploitation of the concrete opportunities the situation provides for building a movement against both Trump and Hillary's approaches to politics, which bear several undeniable similarities (the acceptance of a globalized and heavily financialized capitalist system not least among them).

These protests would not be happening had Hillary been elected president, and those participating in whatever protests would have happened would be much less responsive to socialist ideas (which I obviously feel are valuable).

I voiced the very real concern that Trump's victory will drive people back into the arms of the Democrats (that would be bad IMO), and these protests are obviously a good time to fight back against the attitudes which would do so. I think that's something worth doing for sure, and if you don't, I'm happy to argue with you on that point.

Your attitude seems to be that condemning the Democrats is tantamount to endorsing Donald Trump, when the situation is clearly more subtle than that.
@43 Yes, the situation was more subtle. You had a leader and group of activists who had just had a huge impact on the national issue of minimum wage. You had gained a lot of credibility in people's minds, leaving you a huge opportunity for local and state party building on that foundation. You had national Democrats including your signature victory issue, $15/hr in their platforms. But you wasted that credibility campaigning for Trump.

You could have been a party whose members could sit down, look people in the eye, and say, "We are the people who made national $15/hr happen". Now, $15/hr is off the table at the national level and your party building is reduced to "We yell louder and have hipper younger members than the Spartacist League."

You totally blew it and you are calling it an awesome opportunity. This isn't 1917. Shock Doctrine has zero chance of bringing left socialists to power in the United States before climate change has made all our discussions today seem quaint. I'll be dead and you'll be sitting with your friends who voted Hillary in 2016 talking about how silly you all were.
@43 When you campaigned saying "Don't vote for Hillary, " you calculated that the likely increased suffering of your "undocumented and LGBT friends" was worth the sacrifice in the interest of sticking to your "principles" and the long term good result that would make the suffering of those other people a worthwhile sacrifice.

I just can't get my head around the idea of supporting approaches that are likely to lead to increased suffering of "other people" and innocent people in the interest of some unlikely long term greater good, while completely ignoring the crisis of climate change.
@43 That is to say, it isn't my right to say who should and shouldn't be sacrificed to achieve my personal goals.
@46 Socialist Alternative campaigned for Jill Stein. Whether or not this was the right choice is a tactical question. I don't feel by not voting for Hillary Clinton I was "sticking to my principles", or anything, that's just not how I approach voting. In Washington, Clinton was going to win regardless of the third party vote.

I agree that it isn't my right to say who should and shouldn't be sacrificed to achieve my personal goals, and so would Socialist Alternative, I would assume (I haven't been associated with them for some time, for logistical reasons). They did not campaign for Trump, they campaigned for Jill Stein -- not the same thing, and certainly not voter suppression!

If Hillary Clinton won, we would not have a $15 minimum wage nationally. If anything, it would have been increased to $13, though I find that rather unlikely, as well.

To be clear, I think movement building will be harder under a Trump presidency than under a Clinton one, not easier. The protests occurring now are not necessarily suggestive of activism over the next four years. Many people in Socialist Alternative agree with me.

I think that supporting approaches that might increase suffering in the shorter term can sometimes be justified in rare cases, but in this case it wasn't. I just don't think that Sawant telling people to vote third-party rather than for Hillary Clinton played a significant part in Donald Trump's election. The part it played is especially insignificant compared to the egregious failure of the Democrats to provide anything worth voting for to white working-class voters, who constitute an important part of the voting base in this country. Trump's campaign exploited this weakness through racism and demagoguery.

Few predicted it would get him elected successfully, but plenty of people recognized this weakness in the Democrats' platform a year ago, at least, including Socialist Alternative. This was a policy loss, as well as a loss of another kind. I just don't think it's as easy to separate these sorts of losses from one another as you seem to. Regardless, I think you're failing to assign enough blame for this loss to the Democrats,(however deep your supposed antipathy) and are overemphasizing the ultimately minor effect that Sawant/SA's statement (and third parties more generally) had on the election.

I think it's absurd to suggest Socialist Alternative or Sawant have somehow lost their credibility for endorsing Stein over Clinton while the Democratic party has maintained it. Of course, the Democrats inevitably have a great deal of credibility as one of the two major parties, but clearly they lost a significant amount of it over the past four years, as did establishment candidates of many different stripes.
@47, so no social security or medicare for you. I hope you make lots of money like those rich GOP assholes. This is what happens when people are idealistic instead of practical. Common sense. Come on.
As far as splitting hairs and pretending your red vote in a blue state doesn't count against you, then consider the barrage of hate and animosity strewn at Hillary for all the world, and Hillary voters to read. At least you could have kept your mouth fucking shut when it was clear the race was between Hillary and Trumpass.
How many times need it be said that Sawant/SA were not supporting Trump, but Stein?

I personally think Hillary Clinton deserves a great deal of hate (directly properly towards her policies and actions as SoS and with the Clinton Foundation, not stupid shit like e-mails or whatever), and Trump does, too. I'm being perfectly practical in this desire, even if it ended up causing Hillary not to get elected (it probably didn't, and if it did, it was a minor cause at most). I want something beyond the two party system, and supporting the Democrats when they run such a transparently terrible candidate and their platform is watered down pseudo-progressive garbage isn't too helpful in getting that.

I'm not properly insured, and am very much not rich, but I don't regret not voting for Clinton (I can't vote actually, cause I'm a green card holder and not a citizen).

You seem to expect me to want Hillary to win. I would have preferred she win over Trump, but it's awfully entitled to expect me not to criticize or to endorse someone I consider reprehensible (not personally, just politically).
That was @49, by the way.
@50, Entitled means using good judgement?? Not even worth trying to explain common sense to some people. You've got trump. You supported his campaign whether you like the sound of it or not. Idealism is great, but when the wolf is at the door, it will do nothing for you.
btw, in life sometimes there is choice A and choice B. No matter how much we want another option, it just doesn't exist and we had better use good judgement between Choice A and Choice B whether we like it or not. Secondly, in life, if you try to grab to much, you will end up with nothing. Those two things are hard earned lessons in my life.
You don't say!?
The protests are worthless and will change nothing
You don't say. Yes. But I don't think you grasp it.
@55. Yes, they do. The viatnam protest made a difference. They lasted for years, but they made a difference. To allow the oppressor to silence you is to enable them. They don't stop when we are silent. They go for more.
Alright, guys. Just resign yourselves, I guess. Sometimes there's only two choices, right?

Seriously? "Choice A and Choice B"? You're simplifying an extremely complicated situation. If you're really equating endorsing/supporting Trump or Stein, you're in error on every level.
Hey Charles Mudede,

Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative are genuine socialists.

Unlike you.

Socialists are audacious.
You are mendacious.

You absurdly assert that somehow “[Kshama Sawant] made the case that Clinton was exactly the same as Trump …”.
We challenge you to provide any link to any of Kshama Sawant’s splendid speeches and articles, or indeed to those of any other Socialist Alternative comrade’s, making such an undialectical and incorrect statement.
As the saying goes, “Put up or shut up”.

The class character of both the Republican and Democrat parties is bourgeois.
Both Trump and the Republican Party leadership, and Obama and the Clintons and the Democrat Party leadership, are capitalist enemies.
We fight them all.
We must build a huge, country-wide, mass party of the 99% to defeat them all.

But “Clinton the same as Trump”? — that would be an oafish oversimplification.
If those two reptiles were “the same”, our overlords the 0.01 Per-Cent would have no use for them — because some limited difference is necessary for the bosses to keep millions of us bewildered.
On the contrary: Trump and the Republican Party leadership, and Obama and the Clintons and the Democrat Party leadership, are different instruments in the capitalists’ infernal orchestra.

So, stop groveling before the beaten generals of the Democrat Party leadership.
Take courage and march with us as we combat the bosses’ and Trump’s vile anti-worker agenda.

We will keep doing our best to help our class realize its mighty power.
By participating in all their struggles.
Including the anti-Trump protests.
And winning the leadership as and when we can.

We strive to create a federation-type of mass party of the 99%; against the Republican and Democrat parties; hopefully including Socialist Alternative, the Green Party, Black Lives Matter, 15Now, NODAPL, all other genuinely progressive forces, and above all the huge numbers of young people, workers and students moving into struggle.

We would all work out and agree upon a common minimum programme, but beyond that each constituent group would be free to run their own campaigns and to criticise each other.

In the struggle of ideas, the best ideas will win.

Struggle, Solidarity, Socialism!
@59 What a frickin' disappointment to find out just how pathetic the political party Sawant has been building is. Really, I'm disappointed. The fruit of all the very successful practical work you did thrown away so you are left with the sad glory of aggressively pushing yourself into the front of every parade like it's 1977 and you are the Spartacist League ready to righteously lead god knows who onto glorious revolution in a world that doesn't even remotely take you seriously. Sawant will for sure cash in with at least one more book while the iron is hot though. She's clearly gotten a taste for the national spotlight now.
@58. On election day there was choice a or b. Like it or not. Thems the facts. And furthermore, life is so simple. Yes. If you can't fuckin tell the difference between A and B, then you're fucking yourelf and everybody around you. Think about it for a minute. A or B. There us no fucking C, in almost any decision you make. Stop complicating things. A or B. That simple folks. That fucking simple.
Clinton loses the election, and everyone gets blamed EXCEPT Clinton.
Sawant had no impact on the election. Washington's electoral votes went to Clinton, and if a few Bernie supporters cast protest votes it hardly matters.
Furthermore, someone not even in the Democratic Party shouldn't be expected to toe the party line.
The reality is a lot of Hillary supporters are just mad and deflecting blame onto the far left.
@62 Some fools like me were under the impression Sawant wanted to build something. So, I was disappointed to find that she was more interested in tearing down the competition for her target constituency rather than in fighting against racism, sexism, unregulated corporatism, and unchecked climate catastrophe.
@63 Accept that your loser candidate lost and move the fuck on.
@63 Voting for Clinton is "fighting against racism, sexism, unregulated corporatism and unchecked climate catastrophe"? Tell that to Honduras, or Haiti, or the communities that have been damaged irrevocably by fracking.

@61 I have thought about it for more than a minute, which you clearly haven't. Your reductionism is unhelpful and misled. There are ways of building movements outside of voting for one party or another, including campaigning for or supporting third party candidates regardless of their prospects for victory. If we adopt your binary mentality, the Democrats' role as the "progressive" party of the United States will only be further cemented.
@64, the sad thing is that it's not Hillary's loss that many are mourning. It's the dream of a better country that is inclusive, just, and equitable. I don't think that the republicans are going to do that for us. In fact, they brought us the preemptive strike that led to the fall of the ME and then the lax regulation on the financial institutions that led to the financial collapse. So, no. I don't think they are going to care about all those angry poor white people who voted hate. The democrats actually cared about all those angry poor white people along with everyone else. But so be it, you are correct. Hate and fear wins yet again. The human race is destined to self destruct. In the meantime, don't believe the trickle down economics. People are greedy. It will never trickle down to you or me.
@65 I get what you are saying. You and Sawant believe that Trump winning will lead to a better outcome, and that you have the answers for the likely worsening problems.

At least most idiots like me who voted for Nader didn't in the end say the resulting Iraq war showed how necessary Nader's awesome plans were. Eventually, I gave up blaming Gore for not running a better campaign - one which would have succeeded in offsetting the foolishness of voters like me. So, I guess I shouldn't be casting blame around this time. I just wish more people had got that lesson, instead of wallowing in the warm glow that is amorphous Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Emails? Sheesh.
@65 It was, in reality, a binary ELECTION. Changing the binary nature of our politics, if even possible, would/will require painstaking organizing and buidling up local and regional power through governing. Shock Doctrine party building has never worked for the socialist left in the post WW II age, and it wont work this time either. Too bad you weren't willing to do the real work at the local and state level, to get more than ONE member of your party serving in government, getting real things done.
@67 You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, since I've already stated above that I think movement building will be harder under Trump and not easier (I suspect Sawant agrees). Your "shock doctrine" accusations are just plain baseless.

I also stated above that I don't give a fuck about Clinton's e-mails, which you also seem to have missed. If you consider condemning Clinton's support of the Honduras coup, the shady dealings of the Clintons and their foundation in Haiti, and her endorsement of fracking to be "Clinton Derangement Syndrome", then I guess I have it.

Socialist Alternative is a small but growing party. Before Kshama was elected, she ran for state house and lost. After she was elected, SA ran another candidate (Jess Spear) for state house and lost again. When Kshama was first up for election they ran a candidate in Boston and one in Minneapolis, too. Last year, Kshama was challenged and won.

SA has been doing "real work" at the local and state level all over the country. Since then, their members decided collectively, after internal debate, not to run anyone during an election year. This is a tactical decision whose merits and challenges were openly discussed before a decision was made. Their resources are limited, you know? You can't expect them to succeed immediately everywhere they try, especially with fewer than a thousand members. It took years of organizing to pull a victory off in Seattle. In the one case where SA has won, they've obviously gotten "real things done" on a local level. I assume you're ignorant of all the efforts SA is involved in around the country, because if you weren't, you'd realize how wrong your claims are.

Do you think everyone in the organization spent the entire general election campaigning for Jill Stein? They were and are participants in all kinds of organizing efforts in all the cities they're in (e.g. Stadium Stompers in Philly, where I live now).
@68 Unlike your party who has done so much of the work at the state and local level that they're at risk of having a Republican led Convention if the States in 2018.

Get your head out of your ass and fix your own damn party before you go looking to denigrate other parties for their mistakes.

But, this is just the hangover of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Nothing Clinton ever does is bad or wrong, and, by extension, the DNC is in a solid state of existence.
whoa - she was advocating third party candidates. where is the strangers' outrage at comrade sawant?
Audacity, ideology, and misanthropy are no substitute for smarts. That much, at least, is evident. It's hard to think clearly when one is so busy posing, it would seem.
Fellow Clinton voters, we lost. What we did this time didn't work, it's time to try something different. Bernie supporters, you lost. What you did this time didn't work, it's time to try something different. Socialists, you lost. What you did this time didn't work, it's time to try something different. Misanthropists, you won. You hate humanity, by definition, so you think we got no less than what we deserve. But that's no reason to listen to what you have to say, or even to acknowledge your existence. A misanthropist is nothing more than a racist who hates white people just as much as they hate people of every other color. Even Trump is better than that.
@35 cracked

I voted for Hillary.
I thought she was the best choice.

She lost.
She lost because she wad unpopular.

We knew she was unpopular before she won the nomination, but she was nominated anyway.

Now all the party elites want to blame everyone and everything except themselves, and except her.

I voted for her.
I asked other people to vote for her.
She lost.

She lost because people who voted for Obama didn't want to vote for her.
There is no mystery here.

Pointing out the fact that she was unpopular isn't a 'cheap shot', it's the truth.
@73 This is according to somebody who hasn't taken a position this whole election. Even Trump is better than that.
Charles, I disagree with you on some things, but I'm with you 100% on this. Sawant is persona non grata as far as I'm concerned. She has completely discredited herself.
@65, If thinking broadly the way you suggest would lead to a better country, then yes! But the way it's set up, the vote is very mathematical. And if you don't get behind the math, it really doesn't matter what your values are, you'll get stuck with whatever the cat drags in. A dirty rat in this case. Furthermore, by not being reductionist in this election, the religious right and white supremacist one. Now I do whole heartily agree with your perspective to think broadly during the conversation. That would be the campaigns. But when you have to make a final choice, you have to make a choice. If you haven't faced that reality in your life then you're either very lucky or very young. You can't change math. Ever. You can want the universe to be whatever you wish. But it is what it is and will not cater to anybodies dreams.
Sawant is great as opposition when a Dem is in office. She's good locally.

After the stunts with Stein? Fuck no do we need her leading the protests.
@77: These assholes "voted their conscience", not with math. Now more get to suffer for their smugness.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.