Has Obama successfully diffused the anti-war movement and other progressive causes?

[GPDP]

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22557

An interesting article by Alexander Cockburn, which goes into the comatose state progressive movements currently find themselves in at the moment. The Iraq War goes on, Afghanistan is set to be escalated substantially (with more troops soon to be on the ground than at the height of the Soviet invasion), Pakistan is being eyed... and yet nary a peep from groups who a few years ago raised hell when Bush did all of these things.

If ever there was evidence that "progressives" are hopelessly attached to the Democratic Party, and need to detach themselves from it if they are to help make a modicum of progress, it is this. There is a reason the Democrats get the support of the ruling class, after all.

Sadly, a few "socialist" organizations also fall into this camp, it appears.

[Dimentio]

The problem is not so much the Democratic Party as the fact that the USA employs a "First-past-the-post electoral system", ensuring that only two or three parties could be represented. Not that parliamentarism is so much to hang in the christmas tree, but it could serve to give radicals a forum on which people could see them and listen to their ideas.

[GPDP]

The problem is not so much the Democratic Party as the fact that the USA employs a "First-past-the-post electoral system", ensuring that only two or three parties could be represented. Not that parliamentarism is so much to hang in the christmas tree, but it could serve to give radicals a forum on which people could see them and listen to their ideas.

Even so, I think this is an excellent illustration of the bankruptcy of progressive movements in the US. Indeed, since the only imaginable and conceivable political spectrum in the US runs from Democratic liberalism to Republican conservatism, liberal progressives and even some socialists will undoubtedly attach themselves to the "left" of the spectrum, even if that "left" isn't very left at all. Hence, when a Republican president gets in and starts wars, and the liberals condemn the wars, the Democrats move in and criticize the war as well in carefully-worded rhetoric, which sends the liberals to the Democratic side.

So once they expend all of their energy into electing the Democrats, the liberals do their duty as well-trained Americans and leave the political arena to the newly elected government, as we are only supposed to participate every four years in massive corporate-sponsored electoral extravaganzas. So if the Democrats start a war, they stay out of their way. After all, if you oppose the Democrats, you either support the Republicans (remember, the spectrum is extremely narrow here), or you support something that is outside the realm of conceivable political reality. So they have no choice but to turn a blind eye. That is, assuming the progressive groups haven't already been corrupted into becoming mere Democratic cheerleaders.

This shines light into the Democratic Party's true purpose in the US capitalist system. Their role, and what they do best, is to co-opt socially progressive movements and integrate them into the mainstream, thus gutting them of anything radical or substantial that threatens to rock the boat. And thanks to the Obama "phenomenon," they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The organizations that once mobilized hundreds of thousands against the Iraq War now lie impotent at the Democrats' mercy. Under these conditions, they could completely replicate Bush's foreign policy to the letter, and the outrage would be vastly stifled in comparison.

[Revy]

Yes, I think so, but it's not going to last long. Already support for war is waning again (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/04/2676451.htm?section=justin).

[Dimentio]

Even so, I think this is an excellent illustration of the bankruptcy of progressive movements in the US. Indeed, since the only imaginable and conceivable political spectrum in the US runs from Democratic liberalism to Republican conservatism, liberal progressives and even some socialists will undoubtedly attach themselves to the "left" of the spectrum, even if that "left" isn't very left at all. Hence, when a Republican president gets in and starts wars, and the liberals condemn the wars, the Democrats move in and criticize the war as well in carefully-worded rhetoric, which sends the liberals to the Democratic side.

So once they expend all of their energy into electing the Democrats, the liberals do their duty as well-trained Americans and leave the political arena to the newly elected government, as we are only supposed to participate every four years in massive corporate-sponsored electoral extravaganzas. So if the Democrats start a war, they stay out of their way. After all, if you oppose the Democrats, you either support the Republicans (remember, the spectrum is extremely narrow here), or you support something that is outside the realm of conceivable political reality. So they have no choice but to turn a blind eye. That is, assuming the progressive groups haven't already been corrupted into becoming mere Democratic cheerleaders.

This shines light into the Democratic Party's true purpose in the US capitalist system. Their role, and what they do best, is to co-opt socially progressive movements and integrate them into the mainstream, thus gutting them of anything radical or substantial that threatens to rock the boat. And thanks to the Obama "phenomenon," they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The organizations that once mobilized hundreds of thousands against the Iraq War now lie impotent at the Democrats' mercy. Under these conditions, they could completely replicate Bush's foreign policy to the letter, and the outrage would be vastly stifled in comparison.

What you should do is to opt for a reform where the USA is moving from a first-past-the-post system to a proportional system. That would make the radical left more acceptable outside of universities and some very marginalised neighbourhoods.

[chegitz guevara]

That can be done on a state by state basis, and it's something I keep floating among progressives here in Florida, especially whenever someone gives me the "fair districts" bs. I want to abolish districts, not make them "fair."