I'm A Little Skeptical Of Democracy Now

[Geronimo Pratt]

For a while I have been somewhat skeptical of Democracy Now, not only because its funded by the Ford Foundation, a CIA front, but because of it seems to tip-tow in between the line of white liberalism and socialism. The coverage of the Oaxaca Commune was atrocious, dedicating entire stories to the murder of an indymedia journalist from the U.S. while the Mexicans of Chiapas were slaughtered in the streets. They did cover Oaxaca more than the mainstream media but in the fashion they covered it with the dead indymedia journalist given disproportionate time only hurt their coverage and displayed that bias towards white American life even permeates much of the left.

I might start to give Counterpunch the boot too because although its critical of the Democratic candidates, it dedicates way too much time to the election campaign. Democracy Now and Counterpunch are nothing like how they used to be, Alexander Cockburn is an example of this, both have moved closer to the liberal spectrum. Although both sites contain valuable information, I find myself arguing with their views when I read articles every now and then. Just like most large sources of information we theoretically agree with, we have to take the good for what's good and throw out the bad rather than dogmatically maintaining to every word.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Democracy Now is basically just a "progressive" alternative news source (not a revolutionary one) but it is better than most just because of the weak state of the left in the US. If there was an upturn in activism or labor struggles, I wouldn't be very surprised if the program shifted a little to the left.

Counterpunch is like the canary for the independent left in the mineshaft of US politics. Counterpunch is disoriented because the left is falling apart. Counterpunch has been supporting Ron Paul, arguing that global warming is not happening, and, in my opinion, gone from having pretty good coverage of Palestine to a quasi-conspiratorial "the Zionist-lobby controls all aspects of US foreign policy".

But there are still some good articles on it and worth reading - but worth reading critically.

[Red October]

I don't know much of Counterpunch, but democracy now is definitely just a bourgeois liberal group, and at the best they are "democratic socialists".

[Comrade Rage]

Democracy Now is an NPR program, so their lack of revolutionary views doesn't surprise me. A lot of public broadcasting shows kind of come to the edge of class-consciousness (so to speak) and stop. For instance, early morning today I was watching Bill Moyers' Journal, and they were talking about the recession and possible depression, and how people my age can't expect the same standard of living as the generation prior to us. The interview evolved into a minor critique of capitalism, but how are we supposed to correct this?


Vote for Dumocrats.:rolleyes:


I think these guys miss the point on purpose.

[Red October]

Democracy Now is an NPR program, so their lack of revolutionary views doesn't surprise me. A lot of public broadcasting shows kind of come to the edge of class-consciousness (so to speak) and stop. For instance, early morning today I was watching Bill Moyers' Journal, and they were talking about the recession and possible depression, and how people my age can't expect the same standard of living as the generation prior to us. The interview evolved into a minor critique of capitalism, but how are we supposed to correct this?


Vote for Dumocrats.:rolleyes:


I think these guys miss the point on purpose.





Exactly. I've noticed with a lot of liberals that they seem to come just up to the point of real class consciousness, then they hold themselves back. It's really frustrating because many of them do understand the basic idea that the rich are screwing over the poor, but they don't take the next logical step.

[jake williams]

The modern American "liberal" as I conceive of it is the rich screwing the poor, or at very least isn't the poor getting screwed.

About Democracy Now itself... look, they're not exactly calling for the overthrow of capital, but it's a useful resource if you don't take it as divine writ and just use it for what it's good for.

There really is a tendency here to call people out for being Not Revolutionary Enough. It's often an accurate criticism, and to some extent even an important criticism, but really, why the surprise? And why do you expect so much more?

[Comrade Rage]

The key is to find out what's making them not take the next logical step. I figure it's essentially two things

The Anti-Communist bias in American politics.
Liberals want the political credit of helping to solve problems.I've noticed that rank & file Dems are increasingly shedding these two bulletpoints, and are even going as far as to associate with radical groups.

From what I see, we're moving in the right direction (politically in America) but not as fast as I would like.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hmm, well I don't know. I just went to an anti-war event with Cindy Sheehan and there were literally 4 people in the audience while there were 2 Sparts and a Not-in-our-name person outside the event.

However, I do think that with Bush on the way out, liberals are feeling less cynical and a little more bold and open to talking about politics again. So the question for me is if they will radicalize or become cynical again once they realize that hoping a Democrat in the white house would change things in Iraq or with the economy was misplaced.

[Red October]

If the democratic party wins, not a whole lot will change. The major democratic candidates are open about their plans to continue the "War on Terror" and the occupation of Iraq for many more years. And they certainly won't be legalizing gay marriage, marijuana, or doing much to help the poor. That said, a Republican victory could really shatter a lot of people's faith in the democratic party and maybe lead them to look for a more radical alternative.

[Comrade Rage]

I've also been thinking about this. It makes me want to vote for a Repubican in the next election. I've noticed people's faith in the Dumocratic Party beginning to wane already. Think about it:

They campaigned on the Right, no one took them seriously (2002)
They campaigned on the Left, people were sick enough of the war to vote 'em into Congress (2004)
Ever since they won control over the House, they have accomplished JACK SHIT.Another Republican will be bad in the short-term, but in the long-run, 8 years of the same crap will likely help our side.

[bezdomni]

If the democratic party wins, not a whole lot will change. The major democratic candidates are open about their plans to continue the "War on Terror" and the occupation of Iraq for many more years. And they certainly won't be legalizing gay marriage, marijuana, or doing much to help the poor. That said, a Republican victory could really shatter a lot of people's faith in the democratic party and maybe lead them to look for a more radical alternative.

Why don't we all vote for republicans then? :P

[Comrade Rage]

Why don't we all vote for republicans then? :PSounds like a plan.:p

[jake williams]

This again the same idea that's been coming up about the "elections". It's certainly possible that another Republican administration would smash the country up so much that there's a violent revolution... but I don't know if that chance is worth hoping for. I mean, I'm not exactly going to be miserable if there is a revolution, but I don't like the idea of making the situation much worse on the offchance.

[Comrade Rage]

Nothing's really going to get better if we elect one of these piss-poor Dumocrats, so I don't see the BFD.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People don't radicalize just because things are "bad". Kerry was the worst pro-war Democrat this side of Lieberman, but people still put misguided faith in him. When he lost, liberals didn't say, well, it's because he didn't put up a fight or motivate people by presenting an alternative to Bush. No, liberals said: let's move to Canada, there's nothing we can do, the American working class is the problem because people in the Midwest voted for Bush.

I don't know what will happen; in the long term, the left in the US needs to just build itself up from scratch again and show how to build unions that can win strikes, defend the rights of immigrants, fight racism and sexism, and reconnect to the working class.

In the short term, it would be helpful if (if a Democrat ends up winning the election) when Obama or Clinton continue the war or don't do sh** about the economy or oppression, that people begin to realize we can't rely on the Democratic party. If they bomb Iran or begin the draft, then radicalization might really speed up.

[jake williams]

People don't radicalize just because things are "bad". Kerry was the worst pro-war Democrat this side of Lieberman, but people still put misguided faith in him. When he lost, liberals didn't say, well, it's because he didn't put up a fight or motivate people by presenting an alternative to Bush. No, liberals said: let's move to Canada, there's nothing we can do, the American working class is the problem because people in the Midwest voted for Bush.

I don't know what will happen; in the long term, the left in the US needs to just build itself up from scratch again and show how to build unions that can win strikes, defend the rights of immigrants, fight racism and sexism, and reconnect to the working class.

In the short term, it would be helpful if (if a Democrat ends up winning the election) when Obama or Clinton continue the war or don't do sh** about the economy or oppression, that people begin to realize we can't rely on the Democratic party. If they bomb Iran or begin the draft, then radicalization might really speed up.
See, I'm uncomfortable sacrificing the Iranian people, even to those ends. Not to mention that a war against Iran could easily blow up to something bigger.

[Jimmie Higgins]

See, I'm uncomfortable sacrificing the Iranian people, even to those ends. Not to mention that a war against Iran could easily blow up to something bigger.

Yeah, that last line was sarcasm because in the US liberals truly see the Democrats as being a "peace party" even thought they started and oversaw the majority of the wars that the US was in during the 20th century.

Really, we're screwed until, in the US, there is a split form the Republican and Democrat parties.