some valid points made in your article:

– “Power hears nothing and respects nothing except a greater power.”
Good reminder for those of us who may criticize excessively, vocalizing our disgust, one post at a time. As futile and ineffective as that behavior actually is, aside from serving as a temporary emotional outlet, that recognition should help guide us to more community organization; localism as has been suggested by other writers on other discussions. United, our nation could be the greater power that trumps the absolute power.

– “We only need three hundred thousand more callers in the next half hour to meet our goal of $50 Billion for the invasion of Iran!”
Useful analogy gussied up in thick, comical sarcasm.

– “The champions in the amoral manipulation of power relationships are the Democratic and Republican parties… both of which run as far from “issues” as they can.”
It would seem obvious to anyone capable of observation and analysis that the “issues” for the people are not the “issues” for the corporate bitches being bought and sold and represented to the public as candidates. Still, we shouldn’t award the fecal crown of tyranny just to the political bunch when it comes to amoral manipulation of power relationships — the corporatocracy and its complacent media industry along with the military are co-champions with the aforementioned.

– “If they are stupid, then what are we?”
Both stolen elections in 00′ and 04′ along with the 9/11 coup caused me tremendous anguish in not being able to help others convince themselves of the calamity taking place. I can’t even count the endless number of conversations with people across the country who were idiotically stubborn to realize the truth that their government was doing its best to nail them in their Zielscheibe. Now they have succeeded, and that they congratulate the suckered public with a complimentary election and more illusory just goes to show how stupid they believe the majority are. “Stupid is as stupid does.”

A great article overall, colorful, insightful, metaphoric, appropriate quotes, comparisons and contrasts, nicely done.

Best to all.

Thank you for this excellent piece.

Let me suggest a third way to get past a wall: wait until it collapses naturally as it surely will.

There is no need for you to be there to witness the event. But you may be confident that it will happen.

The problem is you are generalizing. US hegemony does exist even if Noam Chomsky was never born. People who see the US as an imperialist empire are not zionist apologists. Zionism as it exists in Israel and supported by the Bidens of the world is fundamentally a racist imperialist ideology. But Chomsky is NOT the left. He is merely a social critic and self-proclaimed anarchist.

It is this incredible conflation you make by using some sliver of a “left” which for me is not represented by The Nation or The Progressive, because at the end of the day they are the magazine version of Michael Moore the Hypocrite par exellance.

These personalities – Chomsky, Moore, Zinn, Marx, whatever – are observers. In some cases, in some cases there actions are wholly divergent with their writings.

This is not about a leftist void. It’s about laziness. Start with yourself Mr. Zingh.

[1] who is the “left”?

I would generally define the Left as the assortment of Marxist, anti-capitalist, socialist and who believe in redistributive policies. Essentially I define leftist politics as supportive of justice, equality, fairness and democracy. However the “Left” that I am critical of are particularly the “Chomskyite” Left who are critical of U.S. hegemony but unfortunately have used their intellect to form sophisticated arguments using U.S. hegemony and imperialism to obscure injustices and sow confusion.

[2]Where do you see yourself?

I guess I would consider myself a deadbeat without any affiliation. I’m just a squirrel trying to get a nut. In an earlier time I was a supporter of the Democrats and considered myself a “Liberal”. I read Chomsky and Marx and studied economics and have a MBA.

I’ve spent some time in NYC in the 80′s during the Ed Koch regime and saw the politics of the Jewish community politics shift more and more to the right and grow disdainful of the African American community. This was shocking to me especially when years earlier there seemed to be a real working relationship between the two communities.

What has changed over the past 20 years is that now you can openly speak about and criticize Zionism. You wouldn’t dare do that 20 years ago. But as you can see even here on DV there is still denial on the Left regarding the extent of Zionism influence upon the U.S. political economy. The inability of the Left to tackle this issue is a major reason why solidarity is extremely weak on the Left.

This conclusion for me however is fairly recent. What REALLY opened my eyes to this was how the Left deliberately diffused the anti-war movement and failed to coalesce four years ago to build upon Nader 2000 showing and build a real alternative to the Democrats. The people who I respected in the past decided to betray solidarity especially because the issue of Zionism was being raised as a source of the problem leading to the War on Iraq. I agreed with the War for Oil explanation to a large extent but I also saw Zionism as a factor as well. This caused a major riff among Left activists to the extent that they would discredit those who was bring up the Zionist influence.

Seeing the extent that the Left wing “celebrities” was going to diffuse the anti-war movement and thwart solidarity really opened by eyes to the hypocrisy on the Left.

The hypocrisy of the Left is that the Left today fails to put the ideology of the working class above all else.

[3]you the man with the plan, the right plan?

My plan is to advocate Deadbeatism. In fact I think Deadbeat Dads are modern day radicals. Fuck all debts and especially court induced pecuniary payments. This is something that the Left doesn’t seem too willing to advocate.

[4] Are there any others who are in your circle?

My ranks are growing. All you have to do is check the business pages and the divorce filings.

[5]what would you call this circle?

Deadbeats

I love you more than some here, but I gotta ask as they have…who is the “left”? Where do you see yourself? You certainly are not right-wing or centrist… are you the man with the plan, the right plan? Are there any others who are in your circle? what would you call this circle? Please Mate, tell me…definitions are required before logic can be applied

1.There were two errors in the article, and I thank readers for catching them. The first was that “Do It Yourself” is “DIY,” not “DYI,” as I wrote. The second – more egregious – was misnaming Eugene McCarthy when I meant Joe McCarthy. Joe McCarthy’s ghost was one of the ghouls traipsing around on Halloween night. Gene McCarthy will rest in peace. Literally. My sincere apologies to all for being a crappy proof-reader of my own writing. As the patient editors of DV know from past experience, I always make one or two errors of this type in every article. It is my curse.
2.This article has made the rounds of several sites after starting at DV. Some hate the style; some like it. For me, the style and the content of each particular article should be inseparable, each focused on the same goal – like painting. I recognize that I sometimes apply too much “paint.” I am sorry if the way I write bothers some, however I am only trying to create a vehicle to express thoughts in a way that will not bore people. For my own edification, I try to vary the style of my writing, borrowing, sometimes shamelessly stealing, sometimes experimenting, trying different techniques to test their effects. Some succeed; some fail.
3.I had no intention of trying to change anyone’s political convictions, just express my own. Doing so in writing merely helps me to make up my own mind. I hope no one minds when I share.
4.Cynthia McKinney is a terrific person and very tough. The Greens are very well-meaning, and I have carried their card in the past. For me, right now, however, they do not move the ball toward the goal: attaining power.
5.Ralph Nader, in my view, is one of the heroes of our times. Interestingly, if one reads his autobiography, one learns that he is hardly a radical. Indeed, Mr. Nader is probably the one truly “conservative” candidate out there. His autobiography describes an ethos that could be borrowed from nearly every old world Mediterranean family, spanning myriad cultures and religions from Portugal to France to Italy to Greece to Lebanon to Egypt to Morocco. I know it well and personally. Mr. Nader irritates others precisely because he believes the system will work if we all are honest, ethical, well regulated and hard-working citizens. Like him. Unfortunately, the majority of people – myself included – don’t always fit that job description. As I pointed out in the article, I am more comfortable with and prefer a parliamentary system because it can accommodate minorities. In a parliamentary system, I could help Ralph Nader and all of us become a part of a coalition government, perhaps gain him a significant ministry, perhaps help him become prime minister leading a coalition of parties who could coalesce and work together. But we don’t have a parliamentary system. It ain’t gonna happen. Not in my lifetime or yours.
6.There are two basic ways to get past a wall. One way, you ram your head against it until it collapses. Another way is you figure out a way to go around it. The object is to get past the impediment as soon as possible without destroying yourself in the process. I’ve tried the battering ram approach. It hurts like hell. Now I will try a more subtle approach. Do I think Mr. Obama’s politics match up with mine? Hardly. I think two things about him, however. One, he really has no power base except what voters give him. I am convinced that a vote for him is not a vote for his rather nondescript “policies,” such as they are, but a huge vote of disgust against the status quo. He’s too smart not to recognize that. Although I think well of the DV readership and its insight, I have a much more guarded opinion about the population on the whole. For the citizens of this rather unenlightened country to express an unequivocally strong measure of disgust with the status quo is progress, indeed, and perhaps the most I can expect from a nation with our track record. Second, Mr. Obama has come to symbolize something, precisely because he is not your typical white bread politician born with a silver spoon in his mouth. There are a lot of people for whom the elevation of a Barack/Michelle Obama to the White House will be symbolically meaningful in and of itself. Astoundingly meaningful. The symbol, of course, means nothing except the inspiration that the impossible can happen. And that’s what eggs on folks who read this site (and I don’t mean the surveillance types who undoubtedly lurk here) to step up to the next impossible task – something substantive that’s more than just symbolic. I am patient and deliberate enough to take a step at a time to get past the wall without smashing my head against it.
7.Lastly, my only truly “reactive” comment is to those few who ask why an article appears at DV if it is inconsistent with the reader’s own opinions. The editors of this site – to their immense credit – clearly believe in the message of the name Dissident Voice. If it were “Harmonious Voice,” I could understand how readers would want to be forever reinforced in their own opinions. If I may be forgiven one last lecture: those who would only want to read and hear what they already know and believe may be like the Puritans. They dissented from the Church of England which discriminated against them. They then came to the Americas… where, in delicious irony, they promptly discriminated against everyone else and engaged in one witch hunt after another in the name of preserving their own ideological purity. Such is the legacy of this country and it shows itself time and again at places like FOX television, various talk shows and in many of the subliminal political messages emanating from the Right during this campaign season. We don’t need that or want that, and the editors of DV are gutsy enough to resist the trap of ideological homogeneity.
8.My sugar high having now worn off, I will now retire to my cave and shut up. Thank you. z

I don’t disagree with Zingh voting for Obama I do disagree with the fallacy that he’ll be able to influence Obama. At best Zingh can engage Obama supporters with is concerns such that they have no illusions about Obama.

In the meantime the Left has to devise new strategies to reach out to voters like Zingh and find way to build the level of solidarity needed in order to construct a viable alternative.

This is one of the most entrancingly written prosaic articles I have read about the elections, and generally. You are a superb writer and thinker, regardless of you conclusion.

For those who say they will abandon the informative, analytical, insigtful, entertaining, excellent writing of DV, because of one article with which one disarees is belittling to that for which we stand, and to yourself. You do not grow by refusing to reflete and argue against and for. That requires rigor. Face up to the tasks of change.

Ron
http://www.ronridenour.com

I think you mean Joe McCarthy.

Nonetheless, I think this is a good article even though I don’t I will vote the same way.

If you want an alternative, check out Matt Gonzalez’s article from yesterday. Go through all the articles we’ve posted regarding the election so far, and you’ll probably find the ratio of commentaries opposed to Zingh’s well-written one above to be about 100-1. Doesn’t hurt to get a different opinion every now and then, especially when it’s well articulated. I personally don’t agree with it either, for what it’s worth, but still think there’s insight to be gleaned from the article . . . even Norman Solomon’s.

– Sunil

the change obama will bring is not what all the obamazombies are hoping for. it’ll be a rude awakening…