As a daily commuter of L.A.’s sprawling freeways—in particular, the horrendous 101-405 interchange—I am no stranger to, or proponent of, our inefficient, myopic, absurdly aggravating system of mass transit. Given an affordable, prompt and convenient alternative—as Munich’s interlocking lattice of S and U-bahns, busses, and trams—I would gladly renounce my car. Developing this infrastructure in even one American metropolis, much less the number required to dent our disproportionate energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions, would require an intense and sustained application of organized political power. It is precisely the sort program progressives should embrace, because no neat, cheap, or painless solutions exist to the long historical trends that spawned these positively reinforcing crises.
I voted for Obama in California, the chief reason being the potential power of the movement coalescing around him—a movement to which he will owe his presidency, and that will push him in progressive directions he might not himself have chosen.
As this rising wave propels Barrack to consecutive victories, many have bemoaned the looming threat of party insiders invoking their undemocratic trump card—superdelegates—to thwart popular will. Al Gore is uniquely poised to preempt such a scenario; all it would take is a convincing endorsement.
The flurry of recent diaries lambasting our beloved leaders is completely off base. You self-righteous purists have NO appreciation of political calculation’s enormous cost, or difficulty. When you checked "D" on your ballot, you were endorsing everything your representative might do in the subsequent two years. There's no questioning or backing out now. I've HAD IT with your constant pouting about "civil liberties", "criminal wars", "broken promises" and "accountability,"
1623 days into a war that need not have been fought, I’m nauseated by the passivity and obliviousness: the shopping, the driving, the stultifying banality. I’m not above it: as I sit here typing in air conditioned comfort, people are dying.
I’m tired of polls, of elections, of invertebrate "leaders," of vacillation, of surrender.
Living in the U.S. bestows unparalleled privilege and immense responsibility. Though George Bush would have it, we are not yet a dictatorship; to the extent we can influence government action, tolerance for its criminality reflects on us. What does 60, 70, 80% "opposition" to the war even mean if it doesn’t interrupt normality? Our inaction fully warrants the world’s harshest judgment and contempt.
Opposition is RESISTANCE. Friction. Sand clogging vile gears.
I’ve considered writing this diary for a long while. Its aim is twofold. First, I think it’s about time socialists at DK came forth and were recognized; we form a sizable portion of this community, and our visibility should reflect that. Our intellectual tradition claims some of equality and liberty’s greatest champions—it is emphatically NOT a cause for shame. Second, I’d like to converse seriously with our more moderate brethren within the Democratic Party. If "liberal-as-pejorative" gets under your skin, you can imagine how the even more venomous "socialist-as-pejorative" gets under ours. We may not agree on everything—particularly methods—but we’re natural allies with many shared goals: popular sovereignty; a fairer, freer country for everyone, not only those who can afford it; an end to endless war; and substantive action to ameliorate the climate crisis.
The industrial revolution and capitalism’s overthrow of the millennia-old feudal order transformed humanity’s tools radically, just as the subsequent discovery of petroleum catalyzed a manifold augmentation of their power. Thermodynamics holds that we get nothing for free, but here was a relatively cheap, and, at the time, boundless source of energy. These unparalleled events set in motion the development of modernity: uniquely among living things, humans were freed from the need to establish balance with the immediate ecosystem; a particular environment’s carrying capacity now correlated with the quality of infrastructure far more than any natural characteristics. The population exploded, and civilization became a force rivaling nature.
Financing this extravagance has meant borrowing extensively from an energy "inheritance" accumulated over the eons. Yet, like any inheritance, this one is finite; at some point, we’re going to have to reconcile with this inescapable fact. And it won’t be easy.
He spoke forcefully against the war amidst the hysteria and fear mongering dominating the lead up; he recognized the necessity of single-payer healthcare; he endorsed Dean; he called for Rumsfeld and Rice’s heads in 2004; he gave a speech that stands as a modern treatise on constitutional governance; and he single-handedly put the climate crisis on the national agenda.
Al has, unquestionably, been our party’s most relevant leader during the chimp’s seven year reign.
It sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? But this crackpot idea is so crazy, it might just work.
THE IMPETUS
Bush threatens our republic’s existence. This isn’t alarmism--his continuation in office has consequences: a catastrophic war with Iran, a fiscal trainwreck, irreparable erosion of cherished liberties in the wake of another terrorist attack, or some combination, are possible; deepening entanglement in Iraq, mulish stagnation on national priorities, and chronic abuses of power are expected; needless Iraqi and American deaths are certain. Worse yet, our country will endure the pernicious ramifications of his reign for decades after he vacates the White House.
I could inveigh endlessly against the incompetence, deception, and lawlessness of BushCo’s tenure, but DailyKos has already coalesced around the urgency of impeachment. Now, we need to convince people whose lives don’t orbit politics.
Hope, just as memory of our relieved collective sigh on November 8th, fades with each passing moment of the Democratic Party’s ineffectual opposition. The reservoir of goodwill and optimism in the election’s wake has evaporated; the popular mandate to end the Iraq war, betrayed by cynicism and cowardice. Yet again, a small man—repudiated by the voters, and clearly unfit to govern—smirks triumphantly clutching his blank check.
Politicians and citizens alike pay lip service to popular sovereignty—that ours is a government of, by and for the people—but seldom are the implications of this ideal carried to their logical conclusions, or actualized in the daily workings of our institutions. Vast portions of the citizenry defer to authority with alarming alacrity, revealing their underlying assumption that such authority is self-justifying.
This is anathema to any free polity, but it’s especially contemptible on the 231-year anniversary of our rebellion from Great Britain, for the impetus of the American Revolution was precisely the establishment of government legitimated by popular consent. In the minds of our framers, authority did not mystically emanate from a divinely appointed king—or even from the institutional structures, constitutional officers and career bureaucrats—but derived from the people themselves. This is a radical idea, but that is the nature of this country: it was and—if it honors its legacy and founding documents— is a radical proposition:
I’m cognizant that I’m about to engage in the worst sort of hypocrisy: selfishly demanding selflessness of another. I know that I haven’t the right, but dire necessity stirs me on anyway.
We need you to run for President in 2008.
Why?
Many would cite your deep understanding of the impending climate crisis, arguing that only you can bring about the requisite paradigm shift. Others would point to your vociferous opposition to the Iraqi calamity long before it was popular to do so, and when it could still be avoided. Your vision and good judgment has earned you the nickname "Goracle". To be sure, I think we’d be hard pressed to find a political figure with a more comprehensive grasp of these issues, but this is not the impetus for my request.
I’m not a believer in messianic politics. There will be no knight in shining armor to extricate us from this mess. And yet, I find much promise in the fact that the complex dilemmas arrayed before us are largely of our own inception and subject to our unmaking.
The chimp is adamant about his right to fire political appointees arbitrarily. Well, I'd just point out that he's a judicial political appointee as well -- one who serves at our pleasure. Impeachment is not be the only way to remove this buffoon. If Congress fails to act, we need to aim for a forced resignation – "a people's pink slip".
Politicians and citizens alike pay lip service to the ideal of popular sovereignty -- that ours is a government of, by and for the people. Seldom are the implications of this notion carried to their logical conclusions, or actualized in the daily workings of our institutions, however. Among vast portions of the citizenry, there is a level of deference to government authority revealing an underlying assumption that such authority is self-justifying.
I’m sick to death of the whole Imus flap, so I thought I’d offer up nice, uncontroversial topic for discussion: atheism.
A popular frame among religionists (and even some non-believers) of late is that the current batch of prominent atheists, particularly Richard Dawkins, are espousing a sort of "atheist fundamentalism."
That's how many soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen we are asking to continue dying for a mistake*. No -- not for a mistake. For a compulsive gambler's desperate attempts to save face. For the cynical Machiavellian games of entrenched ideologues. And above all else, for filthy, criminal LIES.
While you choke on that, consider another number: 8408. Eight thousand, four hundred and eight men and women of our Armed forces will be physically mutilated in the 526 days leading up to August 31st, 2008. Many will be disabled permanently. All of them will come back to a dysfunctional, underfunded VA – as if learning to cope with lifelong injuries isn’t enough. And for what? For NAUGHT!
(*assuming a withdrawal by the deadline specified in HR 1591, and a fatality rate comparable to the last 4 years.)
Until recently, I’d been so focused on writing about original topics that I ended up starting several diaries simultaneously and never finishing a single one. I eventually came to the conclusion that my lot on this site is to mostly sit back, accept my "quasi-ADD," and just comment.
That said, some things require an extended discussion.
I’ve yet to see anything on an important recent Pew survey showing that Democrats now hold the widest gap in party identification (50% – 35%) in the 20 year history of the poll. What’s particularly significant is that these trends are reflected in support for progressive priorities and social attitudes across the board. I won’t go into specifics beyond the fact that popular support for an expanded safety net is way up. If you are interested in public opinion at all, these data really are worth either a quick read of the summarized article or a more detailed perusal of the full study. They both contain a trove of information for those wanting to back their analyses with empirical rigor.
On a recent visit to the website of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, I ran across this article. The NY Times picked up on the story as well.
Matthew LeClair, a junior at Kearny High School in New Jersey, recently caught his history teacher, David Paszkiewicz, on tape delivering what can only be described as a sermon.
While commenting on another diary, I was going to assert that most kossacks who oppose Bush’s impeachment hold that view primarily for practical reasons—they feel as if the venture has little chance of successfully removing Bush and would be a huge waste of political capital that could be put to better use advancing the Democratic agenda. There also widespread concern that the public would regard such a move as payback for Clinton, or worse: a naked power grab. I find myself torn between this sentiment and the desire to see a thorough repudiation of the Bush administration and its policies. As many have said, this has little to do with vengeance, and everything to do with posterity--we cannot set the precedent that the crimes of this government are tolerable within our democratic system. Likewise, we cannot squander a precious opportunity to tangibly improve people’s lives and show them which party really serves their interests. Perception, like it or not, is of paramount importance.
So, rather than just make the statement, I thought it would be best to pose a poll question to see where people really stand:
Amazingly, there is some fundamental truth in all this sudden inside-the-beltway talk of "bipartisanship." The consensus—George Bush is an abject and dangerous failure. The signs are there: the unanimous committee vote and magnanimous praise for Gates, then his 95-2 showing before the full Senate (with Bunning and Santorum holding up the banner of the mooncalves) and later all the hoopla about how the ISG managed to "restore civility" and "work together." In reality, all they did was state the obvious: we are fucked in Iraq. And indeed, the reports’ public refutation of Bush’s preferred narrative has been its most important consequence; changing course is increasingly perceived as a dire necessity, but it is unknown as of yet whether Bush is capable of it.
