Their names, for the most part, are unknown. But we know a bit about what they’ve been up to. In early May about 100 well-heeled progressive donors from around the country assembled in a luxury resort on the outskirts of Austin, Texas, for a 21st century version of the smoke-filled room (i.e., the smoke-free room). The occasion was the second… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (4)Page 1 of 1 pagesA QUIOTE FROM THIS ARTICLE:
“Foundations like Ford, which funds hundreds of very progressive groups,”Yes, Ford Foundation and its ilk have funded the American Left for decades. And the American Left has become what the Ford Foundation, et al., wants. And what sorts of “progressive groups” have these huge nonprofits funded?
IDENTITY POLITICS! That is what these foundations fund! They have funded a generation of pseudoLeft “progressive” activism that has shifted the focus of the American Left from economics to race and gender oriented activism.
And now we see the results of what this PseudoLeft hath wrought!
Our progressive tax base is in a shambles!
We are the only western nation without single payer healthcare.
Our labor market is flooded mass immigration of aliens driving down our wages.
The plutocrats and megacorporations set up these large nonprofit foundations like Ford in order to divert American Leftism from economics. That way the rich can keep their money by leeping the American Left focused on race and gender politics.
Read Joan Roelofs book MASK OF PLURALISM for more on this.
And PseudoLeft outfits like IN THESE TIMES, PBS, NPR, Alternet, etc are the fruit of the years of propaganda created by PseudoLeft media organs.
Posted by cryofan on Jun 30, 2006 at 6:59 PM This article missed some very important things that should have been included.
It could have gone into Soros and his soft-power imperialist ventures around Eurasia.
It could have mentioned PACIFICA RADIO, and its long history of listener-supported public interest broadcasting. By all means go to the pacifica.org website and learn more if you are unfamiliar.
And it steered clear of questionsquestions.net and Left Gatekeepers, a website that has been exposing the foundation connections of these alleged “alternative” media for quite some time. No links to CIA were mentioned in this article, concerning Ford Foundation and others.
So, the article was basically a neutered defense of the current abysmal alternative press, and a glossing over of the behind the scenes manipulation by foundation money and CIA connected foundations.
Not impressed.
Dig deeper, if you’ve got the balls.
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
Posted by johndoraemi on Jul 2, 2006 at 12:33 PM Hi Christopher,
Though Kim stands firmly on the left, on this point, she is absolutely right when she says “an over-reliance on foundation money is the ‘number one dysfunction’ of the movement.”
Recently just got back from Raising Change, an inspiring conference that she and the Grassroots Fundraising Journal hosted in Berkeley for 500 progressive fundraisers from the U.S., Latin America, Canada and the Pacific Rim. The main focus was that fundraising is organizing, and that if we don’t provide individuals the opportunity to invest in their own communities, then we can’t claim to represent the grassroots.
For more on the conference, check out the post on my blog, Fundraising for Nonprofits, gayleroberts.com/blog. Have also linked to this article on my blog.
Thanks for your work.
Peace,
Gayle
Posted by gaylesf on Aug 20, 2006 at 9:29 AM I’ve grappled with the meaning of ‘Left’ for some time. Since most parties move rightward over time, I guess we need to be aware of that. It’s hard enough to stay focussed when various groups get creative with language, so that progressive can mean regressive, etc.. This is why media, such as In These Times, is powerful, a fact that we need to appreciate.
Therefore, I won’t argue with those who want to call In These Times (which I’ve read, on and off, for many years now) a progressive journal. And I won’t argue with it’s idea of what ‘progressive’ means. I’ll just say that I might have no use for ITT’s progress, even if I appreciate the informational value which that outfit presents.
I’ve been a follower of ‘alternative’ media for many years. I gave up on the The Nation long ago. It, like ITT, is bookmarked in my ‘media > favorites’ area, but not because I’m a beliver. Republicrats (Republicans & Democrats) aren’t going to fix the problems they’ve created and their boosters aren’t fooling me. The same goes for my country’s Coniberals (Conservatives & Liberals). Our New Democratic Party has really gone down the toilet - to the point now where our rightwing Green Party wants to ditch NAFTA while the NDP is happy with it and with the imperialistic direction of Canadian foreign policy generally. Witness their jello stand on Canada’s participation in the overthrow of the Aristide government in Haiti. They squeaked a little and then shut up.
I’m encouraged to comment by the comments of the other posters, which give me more hope than the article which we are responding to.
Humans can’t fix this mess. The folks who are here wringing their hands over their political infrastructure problems aren’t going to do a thing for the poor and vulnerable in society. Of that I’m certain. Someone commented on identity politics vs discussions about economics. It really is simple, Isn’t it? I express it this way: You have horizontal - shallow, not as important as other issues - vision, which is promoted by the establishment and our capitalist political classes (minus I suppose fringe parties like the communist and socialist parties), which they promote by seeming to possess that vision themselves. But it’s a big game they play. Jean Chretien’s effort to save the country via marketing benefitted Liberal-connected ad companies etc and led to an inquiry here on the millions that were stolen from taxpayers. I think we needed to lose Quebec long ago, for reasons like the above. The Quebec independence issue continues to prevent Canadian progress, and that’s fine with capitalists who don’t want to deal with the social deficits they create regularly. Let’s talk about poverty in Canada and ‘do something’ about it. Amazingly, The corporate-owned media here ‘is’ talking, regularly, about poverty in Canada. But absolutely nothing gets done about it. That’s because those with power don’t have to do anything they don’t want to do. We have a laissez faire society, unfortunately. And we do not have properly representative politics. If you aren’t wealthy and connected and an owner of capital, don’t expect your concerns to be acted on, if they’re heard.
Then you have vertical vision - not shallow but looking at important matters and not just matters that are important to a few - which plain speaking, mostly thoughtful but powerless players, promote by setting their own honest example of simply refusing to talk nonsense just because those with more power and privilege choose to. I don’t care whether I wave the Canadian flag (I’m Canadian) or the American flag, for example, as long as my standard of living doesn’t go down once capitalists get their way. The harmonization of standards is in the direction of downward. Capitalists are always seeking cost cutting. That’s why they want North American integration. And they have the political classes as partners in their project to do uber capitalism, which just creates social deficits and shrinks the middle class and expands poverty, since in their view benefits (good wages, job security, workplace health & safety regs etc) to workers are a cost rather than an investment, not to mention other benefits such as government regulations (oversight of water, air etc) generally.
Our continentalist leaders, despite fine sounding patriotic language and trips to the Arctic in an effort (ostensibly) to see how Canadian sovereignty can be protected, are on board with the capitalist class’s project of American/ Canadian integration. I recently asked a young fellow who I met (a fellow security officer at the recent AIDS convention in Toronto) whether he cared if Canada remained Canada rather than get swallowed up by the US. His answer is typical, and a product of propaganda and horizontal vision projected by the establishment and it’s media. He said he didn’t want that because he wants Canada to retain it’s uniqueness. But he didn’t offer me any thoughts on what he meant by that.
Our health care system? Don’t get misty eyed about that. The CMA - Canadian Medical Association - recently elected as it’s chief a fellow who doesn’t even believe in our single payer system. But I’ve been trying to tell people for years that it’s unrealistic to expect that a large scale socialistic program like our health care system should survive within the neoliberal capitalist system we have. You can’t have both, and our powerful and privileged elites have no interest in dismantling the system that provides them with their ‘freedom’ just so we can preserve and strengthen our socialistic Medicare. Capitalism is, in fact, just another religion. And it also happens to be one that is very successful and subscribed to by most of the planet, including it’s ‘Left’. If folks don’t want lose socialistic programs and solutions that they believe in, then they should start talking, not about how to fix a Left that agrees with the Right on fundamentals, but capitalism itself. You don’t see the word in the media much, Do you? Out of sight, out of mind.
I told that young fellow that culture is fine and important. But the priority, in my view, should be ‘Do I eat or don’t I?’ I didn’t have the time to tell him that I hardly see any difference between Canadians and Americans anyway, or I would have.
Posted by Arby on Aug 28, 2006 at 8:04 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Christopher Hayes
- The New Road to Serfdom
Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy" - Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracy - What We Learn When We Learn Economics
Is a little economics a dangerous thing? - The Abramoff Babies
Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms. - The Good War on Terror
How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to Baghdad - Economic Populism Proves Popular
To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 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
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
