Our commander-in-chief has reason to celebrate this holiday season as his politics of utter failure cede territory to marginal gain: U.S. military personnel captured Saddam Hussein; the Dow hit 10,000 the first time in 18 months, and a recent flash poll showed his disapproval rating dip by 1 percentage point. But this issue of In These Times is dedicated to hope,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (47)Page 1 of 1 pagesFinally! It’s about time that we started working on what’s IMPORTANT—removing that fool and his cadre of corporate cretins from the White House, and starting the arduous job of repairing the damage the damned fool has done to our country and our world. We, as Democrats and Americans, can only do that by showing a united front, behind one strong candidate. That candidate should be determined sooner than later. I think Mr. Dean is the choice.
Posted by Bill Chandler on Jan 6, 2004 at 10:29 PM I am french and I am travelling nearly every month to the USA for business: I like americans, I always believed that America is the country of freedom and I am very glad to see that people like you are now acting to make sure that this country will remain an example for the rest of the world, an example of democracy and free speech as so many people in the world think it is, good luck and thank you so much for what you do
Posted by Marc ferber on Jan 7, 2004 at 12:10 AM Yes, democrats need to work together to get Bush out of office. However, I think all the trash talking between all the democrats is only giving the Bush Camp more ammo when it comes time to vote. I think this upcoming election is extremely important and getting rid of Bush will certainly bring about a more hopeful future. It’s a joke how some pundits try to argue that Bush has good foreign policy experience. If that were true, why do most of our European allies hate him? It wouldn’t surprise me if the CIA has already killed Bin Laden and has him on ice, ready to roll him out in time for the election so Bush’s popularity soars. Just wait and see.
Posted by CORBIN DALLAS on Jan 7, 2004 at 12:13 AM If people don’t support 3rd parties and always support r’s or d’s just because one or the other will win, we’ll never get what we want. clinton gave republicans what they wanted. bush is making the government bigger than clinton ever dreamed of. bush promised to partially privitize social security. no one who pays attention and has an ounce of sense believes him. he’s more of a democrat than clinton is.
Posted by Robert C. Keever on Jan 7, 2004 at 12:17 AM Dubya greatest (only?) accomplishment is waking us up and bringing us together. Bush personifies the corporate cronyism and culture of corruption (Hat’s off to Tom Tomorrow’s most recent cartoon) which is undermining our democracy.
Posted by Weston JB Lund on Jan 7, 2004 at 3:01 AM Bushwould NEVER be elected if the people were allowed to see the documentary that the US media refuses to show:
ìUNCOVERED ñ The Whole Truth About the Iraq War!î
Details and a preview of the film are here:
http://tvnewslies.org/html/uncovered.htmlDVD or VHS. must must see.
Posted by Reg on Jan 7, 2004 at 4:25 AM ìThe reason I think Democrats have done so poorly in the last few election cycles is they didnít really know what they wanted to accomplish,î says John Nichols, who writes extensively on national politics and is associate editor of the Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. ìThey just wanted to maintain a hold on the White House and get the House and the Senate back. Just clawing your way back to power is not a very attractive thing. Republicans offer something real. And at this point the Democrats have had several cycles of offering nothing more than saying, ëWeíre not Republicans.í î
This is precisely what progressives are perpetuating when they blindly throw their support behind whoever the Democratic nominee may be. The slogan “Anybody But Bush” makes progressives sound like their main principle is winning an election.
I was part of the first Stop Bush At ALL Costs coalition in 1992. The costs of supporting Bill Clinton seemed pretty minor the first time I voted for him. Now, I wish that I would have voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. At least then I wouldn’t have been partially responsible for the damage that Clinton and the DLC have done to progressive politics in this country.
I fear that progressives are falling into the same trap with Howard Dean. He is trying to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk and an antiwar candidate, but he is neither. Don’t take my word for it; do a Google search including the terms “Dean” and “Biden-Lugar”.
Posted by Tom Yager on Jan 7, 2004 at 4:46 AM Most people continue to make the mistake that the Democrats are an opposition party when in fact they are best understood as junior partners in a ruling coalition. For all their superficial differences, both parties believe that the complete political, economic, and military domination of the planet is essential to the preservation of American society. In the wake of 9/11, this is the only issue that really matters anymore. America must be persuaded to turn away from the temptation of world domination,and soon, and I see no political figures at any level willing to confront this issue. We must stop this juggernaut and soon, for the ultimate result of our current policies toward the rest of the world can only be the extinction of the human race.
Posted by nightwatchman on Jan 7, 2004 at 11:46 AM The majority of American probably do tend progressive, but these days it doesn’t matter what ordinary people think, it’s what the Washington elite think. This elite is almost entirely committed to the most reactionary economic ideas, they control the media entirely, and they are now capable of rigging elections. What does it matter what ordinary people think, feel, do or vote now? Democracy is over, and I happen to think it died at Dallas and will never return.
PS: The fellow from France who has submitted a comment above should learn a little more about what the U.S. really is like before he makes such ignorant remarks. An example for the rest of the world my ass!
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Jan 8, 2004 at 1:04 AM You said it Carl.
If Bush is reelected(?) in 04, I fear America will become a Lost Cause.
The sooner we stand on our own two feet and become a Republic the better.
Posted by Patrick on Jan 8, 2004 at 1:07 PM What difference will it make if Oz becomes a republic, when you have the same twisted corporate media (Murdoch) as the rest of us. Would being a republic lessen your leaders zeal in supporting Bush?
Posted by Alec on Jan 8, 2004 at 1:26 PM Alec,
A republic may give us more incentive to be our own nation.
And last time I checked Murdoch was an American citizen.
Posted by Patrick on Jan 8, 2004 at 2:51 PM Carl, most people in this country are not progressive. Look at how people vote. Bush, Gore, Clinton, all of these guys are/weren’t progressives. In this election the most progressive candidate is Kucinich and he’s getting stomped, IN A PRIMARY (never mind the other half of the country that is right-leaning would never vote for him).
Posted by brad on Jan 8, 2004 at 6:27 PM brad, it’s an interesting question how progressive Americans are. There’s a chapter about this subject in Michael Moore’s latest book (“A Liberal Paradise”), and you might be surprised but he’s basically right. Last year - well before his book came out - I did some research to see how far Americans had moved to the right since roughly the 1960s. To my great surprise, I found that they had only moved to the right markedly on the death penalty and law and order issues. On most questions, Americans overall are quite progressive compared to what they were in the Eisenhower era, when they didn’t think a Communist should be allowed to keep his or her job and thought a woman’s place was in the home.
Ultimately, how progressive Americans look depends (in public opinion polls) on how the questions are phrased. Certain words are extremely loaded, and will elicit negative responses. Who’s a ‘liberal’? Not me! But, in fact, if you ask them about the issues on a case-by-case basis, the answers show quite clearly that Americans are far more progressive than the elites would like you to believe.
The problem is that people frame the possibilities in terms of what the mainstream media tells them. And the media tells them that progress is off the agenda. Imagine if it told them the opposite!
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Jan 9, 2004 at 3:22 AM brad, something I forgot to add:
You wrote:
“Look at how people vote. Bush, Gore, Clinton, all of these guys are/weren’t progressives.”
Yes, but most Americans don’t vote. (Not that it would probably matter thi year, if they decided to.)
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Jan 9, 2004 at 5:07 AM Carl:
In America, if you don’t vote, it doesn’t matter what politcal beliefs you have. Public officials only cater to those who care about what happens in government, and people show that they care by voting. Why do you think that young voters 18-25 are disregarded in many ways by the government? None of them vote.Besides, how do you know that the other half of americans who don’t vote aren’t big-time conservatives?
I feel bad if you are getting your information about Americans through Michael Moore. I read Stupid White Men and I saw Bowling for Columbine and the guy is funny but he is also a liar. Many of the things he says he makes up. He’s an extremist, and extremists (on both sides) are bad news (pardon the pun).
People are NOT progressive. Most people are against gay marriage and high taxes. The death penalty is still favorable to most in the country. Most people in this country think that religion is important in America. You’re right that Bush (the elder) was successful in demonizing the word ‘liberal’.
Posted by brad on Jan 9, 2004 at 5:59 AM Brad, did you read “Dude Where’s My Country?”
Michael Moore knows people think he’s a liar. I don’t think he is—I think extemists on the right have shouted it so much people believe he is. Now Ann Coulter, that hateful cunt definitely is.
Curious, what you think is the main thing he’s lying about.
Posted by neil on Jan 9, 2004 at 9:47 AM “that hateful cunt”? Are you kidding me? This is the Progressive reaction? You’re an idiot Neil. Stop making us look bad.
Posted by Tom on Jan 9, 2004 at 5:55 PM The only candidate offering substantive progressive change is Dennis Kucinich. His suggested defense, media, health, and corporate reforms are revolutionary, unlike those proffered by Gephardt and Dean.
From the Kucinich website: “Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state.”
My thoughts exactly. And the sooner the better.
Posted by johnny on Jan 9, 2004 at 9:46 PM Folks,
As author of this story I want to thank you all for reading it and taking time to comment. But please, let’s keep the level of discourse above name-calling, even when referencing Ann Coulter.
I can understand the anger—and often am spitting mad at the right wing—but Tom is right when he says that sort of thing undermines our message.
Posted by cynthia on Jan 9, 2004 at 9:52 PM Then what would you call her, oh, Mr. Perfect, Tom?
You ever read her outrageous lies? She calls people like you and I traitors. Her only agenda is hate. I rarely use the “c” word unless I really feel a person is that way.
You ever read any of my other posts on here. Calling me an idiot…
Piss on you, Tom. Like your dumbass comments have been here all along. Go home and play, little boy.
Posted by neil on Jan 10, 2004 at 2:49 AM Christ, what’s the point?
I call it like I see it. I think Ann Coulter is a steaming cunt. I won’t apologize for it.
And since when did this become just “the progressive” forum. Oh, I’m sorry, I thought opinions were FUCKING WELCOME HERE.
Posted by neil on Jan 10, 2004 at 2:52 AM Neil, that’s a helluvan insult to the pudenda of the world
Posted by Glenn on Jan 10, 2004 at 6:04 PM I wouldn’t take Ann Coulter too seriously, Neil. No one with a whit of intelligence does (that is, no one who goes to the trouble of fact-checking her statements).
Isn’t it shameful how much nonsense is being carped about the “lies” of Michael Moore? I was on the fence about his veracity until this morning, actually, when I read the “wackoattacko” page on Moore’s website (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/). He de-smears himself pretty well.
Anyhow, folks, I really wish people here would talk more about policy and less about celebrity and the ethics/politics of foul language.
Posted by johnny on Jan 10, 2004 at 6:36 PM Neil- You need professional help. I’m not trying to insult you. You seriously need to talk to somebody.
Do you have children by the way?
Posted by Jan on Jan 10, 2004 at 7:35 PM More rot about Neil’s foul language. Come on, people, there are more serious things to talk about than using bad language in front of the children reading “In These Times.”
Posted by johnny on Jan 10, 2004 at 7:42 PM hi—-i’m not as active as i should be—so—-carry this message if you can—-dow is actually down if you substitute euros for dollars—we’re becoming a banana republic-with no bananas! eventually $ will fall percipitiously against all currencies- *low interest rate—-deficit((internal and external))—then we’ll see inflation worse than 1920’s germany!
Posted by Mel on Jan 10, 2004 at 8:23 PM I have to salute Neil on using the wonderful phrase, “steaming cunt.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard that one before but I look forward to the first oppurtunity I get to using it.
Posted by James on Jan 11, 2004 at 6:52 AM I admire your optimism… my only worry is that no matter HOW much Bush unites people to vote him out of office, with the newly installed GOP manufactured and controlled electronic voting machines, the votes will not count…. I live in Georgia and after what happened here in Nov. 2002 (first time entire state used Diebold’s electronic machines), I’d rather put a pencil mark on paper than touch another computer screen. I wih I was just being paranoid, but my research and reading of articles tells me otherwise… why aren’t more people alarmed about the new machines that leave no paper ballots? Do they not realize how important it is to question the security of these new “secretive” machines? Are they just too timid or afraid of being “unpatriotic?”
Goodbye to democracy, hello to our new police state in the third world.
Posted by June Corley on Jan 12, 2004 at 4:24 AM All the hope and votes in the world aren’t going to keep Bush from winning…. the GOP controlled electronic voting machines (that leave no paper trail) will make sure of that. Unless we do something to change them before Nov. 2004, I’m afraid all hope is in vain.
Posted by Mary on Jan 12, 2004 at 4:29 AM Good article on politics as a battle of ideas. But what about campaign finance? That’s what really hobbles the Democrats - they’re in hock to many of the same forces that underwrite the Republicans.
Posted by John Farley on Jan 12, 2004 at 8:46 AM here’s some anti-dubya hope-filled rhetoric for ya princess…
Posted by Tara on Jan 12, 2004 at 10:18 AM ...all the progressives in the USA could be fit into Madison Square Garden with plenty of empty seats left over, and instead of trying to win new people over to our point of view, we just sit on the Internet and flame each other…
Posted by nightwatchman on Jan 12, 2004 at 11:43 AM Get this essay into the hands of all the decision makers in the Democratic Party! ASAP
We must unite immediately! Get those presidential candidates off of each other and have them spend their energy against Shrub! The present quibbling is disheartening.
These are scary times and we must be all together on this!
Posted by J Johnson on Jan 12, 2004 at 11:57 AM Wow, did this discussion spiral down quickly into nastieness, or what?
Back to the topic ñ this article.
BINGO!
This is the freshest analysis of American politics Iíve seen in years. I have long thought the two party system is tearing America apart. Living in Europe for the last eight years, Iíve been very impressed with the coalition form of democracy. Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, we can vote our conscience (based on party platform more than personalities ñ something else Iím impressed with but wonít go into here). I also recognize the fact that the Washington machine cannot be torn down and rebuilt, but this article inspires a radical idea -The Democratic Party Coalition. Kucinich can rally the social democrats, Nader can rally the green democrats, Dean or Clark can rally the labour democrats, Liberman can rally the (judeo)/christian democrats, and Braum can rally the civil rights democrats. Have separate platforms recognizing what they have in common, and instructing the voters to vote for the leader of the coalition (Dean or Clark) in the elections.
Posted by Bob Hollander on Jan 12, 2004 at 12:06 PM Any hope is rendered completely meaningless if Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S DRE voting machines continued to be installed acroos the country.
Go to Blackboxvoting.org and find out just how close we are to completely losing our political power in America.
If YOU don’t act decisively, aggressively, persistently and IMMEDIATELY, we will have lost the power of the vote.
Forever.
Act NOW.
Tomorrow may be just one day too late.
Posted by Eric A. Smith on Jan 12, 2004 at 1:38 PM This is a fine example of “whistling past the grave yard.” The GOP is going to retain the White House in a landslide (particularly if the Democrats are so obliging as to nominate Dean,) pick up 10-20 seats in the House, and gain 4-6 Senate seats; nearly a fillibuster proof majority.
You “progressives” are just as deluded today as you were in 1972 when you nominated George McGovern. Please keep it up. We forsee Republican governents in power for as long as you cling to your silly socialist/pacifist agenda. Remember, the only Democrat to be re-elected since Harry Truman was Bill Clinton, a southern governor who impersonated a conservative.
Posted by Bryan K. Donnelly on Jan 12, 2004 at 4:22 PM Bryan- Not to mention replacing at least one, maybe two, liberals on the Supreme court (and replacing a few old conservatives with young ones) and the continuning pickup of Governorships.
Republicans would maybe, maybe be in trouble if they ran a moderate like Lieberman. But these leftists will make sure that never happens- and then we get Bush. Perfect.
What a great time to be a conservative! We don’t have to write essays about having “hope”. How incredibly silly. I can’t wait to see the articles they will have here after the election.
Posted by Blair on Jan 12, 2004 at 10:19 PM Blair,
I agree that conservatives certainly don’t need to write about hope. It’s not on the agenda.
As far as future elections are concerned, you sound a lot like liberals probably did in the mid-60s. Who would have foreseen the downfall of the great liberal consensus? But in a nation with incredibly low voter participation, small changes in mood can lead to big changes in election outcomes. Goldwater’s ‘64 defeat was the turning point for the GOP right wing. What will be the left’s turning point? Who knows. I do know that Lieberman and the DLC won’t have anything to do with it.
Posted by Nick on Jan 12, 2004 at 11:36 PM It’s my honest belief that the stupidest president in the history of the United States (by far) cannot win a second mandate, no matter how savvy his training-wheels administration. Bush’s failures in domestic and foreign policy are nearly impeachable. I give the judgment of the American public much more credit than to reelect this fool, however weak the Democratic alternative may be. There’s much cause for hope.
Posted by John on Jan 13, 2004 at 12:14 AM Marc ferber - well put.
Neill - that was great, I’ve seen your posts for awhile and know you are a reasonable fellow. Sometimes a guy just has to tell it like it is. . .
Everyone else including the author - thanks a million for keeping alive the message of hope.
While it’s true that this discussion is moot if we don’t handle the voting machine problems [see a prior In These Times article] this coming election is the time to hit ‘em hard and make it count. . .
When fighting the school bully, one has to pick up the biggest stick in the yard and clobber him with it repeatedly. Bush and co. have shown absolutely no mercy to the trees, our rights or our children. “So as they sow they shall reap”. Our children’s future hangs in the balance, their health and livelyhood being placed in serious risk every day by an administration that thinks profit is more important than life.
“It’s more important to let my friends make money polluting than it is to protect your children’s health.”
That should be a sticker put on every Bush poster between now and the election, a refrain that is simple, easy to remember and best of all - true.I don’t know about you guys, but it seems to me: anyone who says they are for family values can’t possibly be in favor of pollution. It’s either one or the other, and Mr. Bush has not been kind to my family or anyone else’s in this regard. Let’s keep it together for this election and send these assholes packing!
Posted by Ed Mellon on Jan 13, 2004 at 12:41 AM you guys forgot the most important stat that has come out. 52% of the country would rather have another president than GW Bush. That means a lot. Now some of those (maybe 5%) are conservs who are pissed at him for the whole illegal alien business. But still, the dem has a shot (as long as the economy doesn’t continue to do well, if it does, forget about it).
Posted by brad on Jan 14, 2004 at 12:43 AM brad, I’ve worked out that there’s no point talking to you - you don’t possess the ability to assimilate information.
If you read my post correctly, you’d realize that I did not say I got my information from Michael Moore. I said I did some work on this subject myself and came to the same conclusions as those that subsequently appeared in Moore’s latest book.
Big difference.
I would like to point out, though, that it’s a rightwing myth that Moore doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He usually takes factual stuff that can be used to make a progressive political point and helps popularize it. He has a team of researchers and fact checkers, and his stuff holds up.
I think this myth about Moore making stuff up is getting a lot of circulation because the right is running scared of him.
Posted by Carl Wernerhoff on Jan 14, 2004 at 1:46 AM Carl, sorry for the misunderstanding. Most of what Michael Moore says is the truth, however he likes to exagerate a lot of it. He is also unfair.
In his movie, he blames Dick Clark (!) because a restaurant that he “owns” (he doesn’t own it, he sold his name) made a poor woman work long days (this restaurant had participated in a program to help get poor people jobs). Because she worked long days, according to Moore, her son found a gun and killed a six year old girl in school. Moore doesn’t point to her housemate to be at fault, but the restaurant. He also claimed the NRA came a few days later for a rally, they actually came a year and a few days. Yet I digress…
Moore actually hurts and helps the left wing. He helps get the far-left heard, but he also gives conservatives the impression (wrong impression) that most of the democratic party is like that.
Posted by brad on Jan 14, 2004 at 11:21 PM “People are NOT progressive. Most people are against gay marriage and high taxes. The death penalty is still favorable to most in the country. Most people in this country think that religion is important in America.”
Speak for the only person you are qualified to speak for, Brad: yourself.
Posted by Kilf on Jan 15, 2004 at 7:32 PM Left right left right… who was the extreme of the left? Stalin. What did he want? Full state control of media, concentration camps, centralisation of power. Who was the extreme of the right? Hitler. What did he want? Full state control of media, concentration camps, centralisation of power. Anybody see a pattern here?
Divide and rule, friends.
Posted by Owen on Jan 15, 2004 at 7:38 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Cynthia Moothart
- Beyond God, Guns and Gays
Tuesday marked Election Day—not a trend - The Grand Delusion
- Grasping at Straw Men
- Media Culpa
- Down and Soon Out
- Power of the Possible
More mainstream than the mainstream, the silent majority finds its voice
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
