Zeese’s article doesn’t treat Ralph like a candidate, he treats Ralph like Obama’s lifecoach.
If Nader’s doing everything right (and I would say he is on issues), why is Zeese, after calling Barack out, then spending the remainder of the article rescuing Barack. With McCain, Barack, Ralph, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr in the general election, this is the best shot a third party candidate has ever had at a White House. So why is Kevin writing these “Dear Bambi” letters to Barack instead of following the calling up by pointing out the candidates who are standing for something?

He relegates Ralph to a lifecoach, to part of the Obama campaign. That’s not right and it’s not fair.
http://katskornerofthecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/06/kevin-zeese-ralph-nader.html

Good question, but not for the left but for Nader and McKinney.

The existing “lack of cohesion” means that a common basis for the cohesion of seemingly disparate groups has yet to be commonly recognized by these groups.

The organizational expression, to bring together millions of individuals and groups, into a united effort expressing the overwhelming will and needs of the American people. We need a new “umbrella” political party. A political party that is not controlled by corporate interests that unites these otherwise atomized groups into a common political agenda and platform.

These disparate groups do not lose their identity in joining this “umbrella” party. Instead they provide the “planks” to a common platform, activists and candidates to run for election at all levels of government to carry out the agenda of the new party.

What is the common basis for united and collective political organization and action? Both Ralph Nader, in his opposition to the “corporatization” of the federal government is one individual voice. Dennis Kucinich, in his opposition to the war in Iraq and his long-time opposition to privatization, is another voice . Cindy Sheehan, in leaving the Democratic Party and in her opposition to the Iraq war, is yet another individual expression. Cynthia McCinney runs as an inviducal on the Green Party, with all it’s long-term problems.

The common fact is that the Democratic Party, the federal government, the foreign and domestic policy of the United States, is fundamentally controlled by the same corporate interests and agendas that own the Republican Party.

The corporate agenda is to maximize the corporate profit and individual wealth of the top 1%-5% within the U.S. and globally. This agenda has been in effect since the 1970s, advanced in 1991 with collapse of the Soviet Union, became explicit in the Project for the New American Century, with Bush the agenda was triggered by 9/11 with now never ending war for oil, profit and hegememonic global power.

Instead of a government “of, by and for the people” we now have government “of, by and for the corporations”.

But I would say globally, the non-anglo percentage dining on the sacred cow is much much higher than 3%.

I’m not turning a blind eye to corporate wealthyfare - I would stop all subsidies. But remember - each and everyone of those corporations directly or indirectly is supplying jobs and/or products that you probably use every day. I’m set to survive without them, are the rest of my fellow Americans?

Perhaps your, or your parents or grandparents retirement funds are invested in those same companies, or the local teachers union, or federal employee pensions are invested in those wealthyfare corps. I know a few family farms, incorporated, board members are wife, hubby, adult children, who receive millions and have for 2 decades and yet their grandchildren are meth heads wrecking new cars and blowing the fortune their grandpappy built. They not exactly “agri-business” but they’ve gotten more welfare than they ever deserved.

How many would feel the loss if wealthyfare ended?

We had much worse conditions, as recently as the Great Depression and yet drugs/alcohol, domestic violence, absent fathers did not become a lifestyle for so many.

I know the costs for the typical welfare family is a small fraction of the domestic budget - but the cost in wasted lives and minds is much higher.

There are welfare queens and wealthyfare kings - I’ve no reason to support either of their lifestyles.

However the problem was the in-fighting and perhaps deliberate sabotage of these movement by the so-called “left”. Until people deal honestly with the today’s issues I really don’t see how much will change because such mass movement can easily be diffused due to these “single” issues.

For example this year why didn’t Nader and McKinney run together. That could have coalesced the left in some meaningful way. The “left” has also been quite dishonest regarding Zionism and in fact diffused teh anti-war movement because of such challenges were being raised in 2003.

Nader himself has been tepid confronting Zionism as well so he really lacks credibility here criticizing Obama. If he ran with McKinney he would have more credibility criticizing Obama wrt African Americans.

There has been a lot of criticism with electoral politics. I agree with those critiques however since the left has show their own dishonesty and unwillingness to coalesce for many people on the margins, electoral politics is the only choice. They cannot trust the “left” and see the “left” as yet another “special interest” group.

A new anti-war, an anti-corporate People’s Peace Party that brings together the millions of activists now isolated and atomized into single-issue groups.

Individualistic campaigns attempting to make a basic reform of the Democratic Party Dennis Kucinich, or Marcy Winograd PDA against Jane Harmon) are mainly doomed to failure. The corporate control of the Democratic Party is absolute on core issues designed to maintain the profit of the privatized health care system, the profit of the military industrial complex.

Moving outside the Democratic Party as independents or as a third party candidates has been an unending failure. Ralph Nader, or perhaps a Cindy Sheehan, are individualistic campaigns which exclude active participation of the masses of people and organizations who are now bitterly opposed to the status quo.

Individualistic campaigns, not matter how immediatelyare inevitably doomed as they can never match the economic, media, infrastructure, people or power resources of a multi-million dollar party.

Individuals are forever limited by the health, intelligence, education, or sheer physical capacities of the individual. The individual’s political perspective
is forever limited, unable to comprehend the vast scope of issues with an expertise expected of a political leader. The individual political leader is subject to corruption, assassination, senility, and disease, physical and mental.

I am opposed to all individualistic campaigns as they are doomed to failure.
I am opposed individualistic campaigns because it does not build a movement to continue and greatly expand the goals of the movement beyond the views of any particular individual.

A massive political movement against the status quo exists. The elements of this movement are embodied in single-issue groups, activist groups and individuals who are forever without power because they are forever atomized. There is no organization such as a political party that unites these individuals and groups
into a force to take political power away from the corporate political parties.

What is to be done before and after the day after the November election? Await for the next war, the next assault upon our ability to live and survive? More of the same ?

It’s not about the US empire anymore.

The “empire” is not “unraveling.” It simply is going global. Eventually, reps from regional “unions” (EU, NAU, SAU, AU) will hold court somewhere, likely Brussels - and determine how the world is run most profitably.

I think some folks misunderstood the mantra “think local, act globally.” The corporate and global ruling class has been acting globally for a long long time. The only think local are the yokels.

All while the peons are parsing the meanings of their ruling class packaged heroes and villains and one “ism’ or another.

The problem with taking this government on one war at a time is that it never ends. Iraq occupation is a symptom. What makes Iraq a little unique, is not that we’re in Iraq. It’s that Bush botched the invasion/occupation so that it stayed on the front pages too long. The other 700 bases and centuries of American conquest and occupation managed to bounce around unnoticed, except by a few who paid some attention. The empire is unraveling and Iraq will be part of it but the demise began long before.

A single occupation is far from what ails this country. Nader’s attacking the corporate fascistic state takes aim at the root. I don’t think you can undo this with an election or changing the faces in Washington.

As far as Chomsky being part of a leftiest “ruling class”, what the hell does that mean? What relief valve is he stewarding? He talks, he writes books. If he were to die tomorrow would the flood gates open? The whole country is under a relief valve that Chomsky has absolutely nothing to do with. Some make far too much of this guy. He makes some good points and some tepid ones.

Wake the fuck up!!

End of discussion.

Of course the ruling class makes it harder - it’s more profitable to them.

But no leaders or rulers are going to make it easy. We must stopping thinking any “ism” (or leader) will make life free and easy b/c it won’t.

Chomsky and those like him are part of the ruling class “left”. He’s a vent on the pressure cooker, a relief valve. There’s always plenty of voices to speak for and explain things to the peasantry - but nothing really changes does it.

Personally, I think the government itself brings in most of the drugs. Good for profits and good for dumbing down the serfs.

You say “please, let’s not blame” yet state lives are ruined by drugs b/c the ruling class makes serfs out of people.

Drugs have always been around - we don’t have to use them.
Wars have always been waged - we don’t have to fund/fight them.

People are obedient b/c they don’t want the responsibility for their own lives or the lives of their children.

People are serfs b/c they choose to take the path of least resistance.

Karma.

There is a place in the cosmos for boldness and “what the f*ck” attitude that’s winning as hell. But the Dems are too smart for that.