A word too on your “bottom to top” view of the way a progressive political force could be built. I agree to an extent but certainly not to the extent of arguing that an all-out run for the presidency must await the creating of political power at more local levels. The problem is: how is that local power—for example the election of Greens as members of Congress or county sheriffs—to be accomplished? I would argue that a “successful” run for the presidency (say one that captured 20% of the popular vote) could have an incredibly invigorating effect on the willingness of closet progressives to run as progressives in local elections. Rather than a bottom to top vs. a top to bottom argument, I think we need action proceeding in both directions; and with McCain, Clinton and Obama all grievously out of touch with the mainstream of Americans’ political feelings, what better time to launch such an electoral effort at the presidential level?

Shouldn’t we instead be working to build an electoral base, where progressives sit on local boards, town councils, then maybe state legislatures, and then congress? Imagine if 20% of the House were made up of Greens, or 20% of the Senate? That’s when there’d be a chance for a effective progressive president. Without that there really isn’t any. Even the imperial Bush had a majority Republican base and compliant Democratic minority that let him operate with impunity. You think a congress soaked in corporate dollars would let President Nader pass a single law?

Meantime we have real issues, which need urgent attention. Seems to me that web-based action groups (Move On, Democrats.com and other moderate-to-left groups) are bringing a new kind of anti-corporate grass roots ideology to more people than we’ve had in a long, long time. Small steps, sure, but considering the utter absence of progressive political activity during the last 25 years, it’s a very good start. At the very least, I don’t think President Obama would stand in their way.

Eric
http://www.changeany1thing.com

There are two much better options at the moment: McKinney and Nader. They actually are progressive and make no bones about it. The only reason they are not considered realistic options is because progressives have sold themselves to the status quo, buying into the notion that neither is electable. The only damned reason they’re not electable is because progressives are too damned brainwashed to mark their ballot according to their conscience, afraid of “throwing their votes away” … and the neoliberals, conservatives, and faux liberals who call themselves Democrats, laugh all the way to the bank. And we are left with the lessor of two evils, ad infinitum.

Wrong, question, Eric, should be: does Obama represent ANY “available” option? Neither he nor Hillary Clinton is an option that the American voters are going to take. Both are incredibly vulnerable to the most toxic ingredient in U.S. politics: the tendency to reject outright any candidate or official whom is deemed to be “corrupt” or deceitful. Clinton will fall on the sword of her lies about her record on health care, her “sniper fire” non-experience, etc. etc. Obama will fall at the instant a grand jury returns an indictment of him (even as an unindicated conspirator) for his part in corrupt fleecing of public housing programs in Chicago. Is McCain any “better?” Objectively, probably not, but he has somehow acquired the manner of a “straight shooter” who tells it “like it is” even though what “is is” changes somewhat over time. So McCain is going to win this “purity contest” in an electorate of morally-corrupted voters (me and thee) and then there will be hand-wringing aplenty among progressives whose darling, Obama, has been Spitzer-ized. Better I say for progressives to seek out a presidential candidate not subject to this vulnerability (can you say Cynthia McKinney?) and even if he/she loses, the campaign would be the prelude to the building of the “progressive movement” that the author (and I) advocate.

Why, yes, it does.

These aren’t your typical liberal talking points, and it’s refreshing to hear. Of course, they’re just words, and the guy’s raising like $30 million per MONTH and I doubt it’s all coming as $20 donations over the Web.

But what’s the alternative? There is no mass progressive movement and won’t be by November. We’ve seen the difference between Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism. The first is disheartening. The other, devastating.

Yes, we need sizable, transformative changes in our politics and social arrangements and no corporate-Democrat will bring them. My old Marxist friends used to admit that it would probably take wild social disorder - like a nuclear war - to bring about the revolution they dreamed about. I don’t think we need such drastic disasters (yikes!), but maybe a bankrupt economy, a $3 trillion out-of-control war, growing WW hatred towards Americans, outright criminality in the white house, a crumbling national infrastructure, planes ready to drop from the sky, and who knows what else lurking in 2009 might just be enough to spur an activist awakening beyond the nascent web-based progressive community we already have.

In the meantime, doesn’t Obama represent the best realistic option available?

Eric
http://www.changeany1thing.com