I would like to avoid debunking ron’s assertion, for the pivotal importance of an active and expanding grassroots base is the only means to the communally desired end called change, but the progressive groundswell is too underdeveloped and dispersed in order to produce a candidate from their own ranks. Again, that is the key to bringing about radical change as experienced in countries like Bolivia; a movement behind another plutocratic player will fall way short of attaining any progressive objective. That’s not being cynical, that’s being realistic, it’s accounting for the inherent dynamics of this absolutely dysfunctional and corrupt system.

While the election does indicate an historical moment regarding race and voter participation, both commendable, the reality is there was no major break from past behavior of duopoly support, there was no landslide victory and there was no candidate presented from the ranks of the people which represents real change. Mr. Jacobs is precise on his assertion to begin organizing even more diligently in an effort to expand and develop the anti-war movement, and thus its effectual power with the particular strategy of producing a candidate from those ranks in the 2012 elections. An anti-war, anti-empire, pro-civil liberty, pro-equality, pro-environment party needs to be created as an appendage to that movement, “Anything less will be a squandering of opportunity on a colossal scale.”

Best to all.

I’m going to start a new organization for 2112; Progressives for Mobilizing Progressives for Obama to Stop Mobilizing For Obama and to Instead Vote and Mobilize for Progressives

The acronym sucks, but the sell should be easy

I agree that Progressives who voted or have demonstrated support in one form or another would not have probably made a difference one way or the other (I have no data to support, but if we look at the dynamics leading up to the election, it’s hard to see a Progressive agenda leading the pack).

It is important to recognize that what progressives find as 1) an opportunity to move forward on a progressive agenda or 2) to extract the Obama progressives from the Dem fray and to a real movement is largely a waste of energy.

Progressives can see and hear. Those who choose to get behind a movement will; the rest will do what they’ve been doing – support Clinton II (or III depending how you look at it.) If you ask people about the choices Obama is making with regard to the economy or foreign affairs, they’re more than fine with the old Clinton Guarde. They thought that was just honky dory.

US occupation has been non-stop since our inception. This is, I think, a fair and accurate accounting of US history. To think we will simply pack up and leave our 800 posts (including those in Afghanistan and Iraq) without a recanting of empire…certainly you would not go that far?

If we could “peel” off the “progressives for Obama” (young, old or otherwise) I think you’d have to wrest the dynamics of power which so far have been heavily weighted in the hands of the plutocracy.

The wild imagination that put Obama at the top of the list to become “progressives for Obama” will not simply be disappointed. They will apologize and stay in waiting until the Republicans come to the rescue as they did with Clinton. You know the game. The Republicans cook up some wild-ass story and get the “progressives” to circle the wagons around Obama. You won’t be able to yank those wagons from their circle for love nor money. Obama could be in the process of invading Sudan or Pakistan and those little shits will be telling the world how Obama never did [whatever the Republicans are yell].

The dynamics work over and over. The important thing is that nothing changes. It is the same play we see with the elections. The discourse is controlled by empire. Progressives so bought into the Obama story that they forgave him every right-wing position (afterall better him than McCain, though they’re saying, at bottom, the same thing). Again, the plutocracy controls the rules and the outcome.

Exceptions aside, the large throngs will not be part of a progressive movement. They are looking for an authoritative figure to do the heavy lifting. They are not ready for democracy and confuse it with a day at the polls. Even the house parties and canvassing are just a day out to help their “man” get elected. But where did Obama come from? Did he come from a movement? From the people? No. He is the product of a republican plutocracy; a plutocracy that has a steady grip on power.

The maturity required to move beyond this play at democracy seems totally missing. Again, there are exceptions and these exceptions are your movement; these are what you’ve got to work with – don’t poke them in the eye by calling them “cynics”.

What can be done, along with creating local movements around grass-roots agendas, is to create powerful attactors. Attractors other than personalities and pop idols. The attactors must be power alternatives and where possible co-created. A movement will begin from there.

Never, ron, underestimate the power of those in power. To think they will simply allow the throngs to join you (or me) is just foolish. Divide and rule is an ancient and well tuned tactic used by empire rulers.

What is most confounding is the extent to which even those who understand this went for the Obama trick. Old habits die hard….REAL HARD.

To clarify, I’m not a cynic. The cynics are found in the system that puts forth a black man who is deeply ensconsed in the power structure and pawns him off as a “change agent”.

I’m not as naive as to think that the people who supported Clinton for 8 years regardless of his right leaning Reaganomics and brutal foreign policy are now going to move from Obama, who could very well be to the right of Clinton.

Now we can debate that, but I would argue that we can have change if we are willing to foresake this pop notion that we can “use” what some people think Obama was about (progressive) as a means of launching a real progressive movement. People who were so gullable as to not see through this will take a while. Some will move more quickly, but for the most part, real change born of convictions are a long way off.

We can change if we stop it with the Obama thing, and begin where we are to build what’s needed. Obama is a distraction.

(Not that this has anything to do with your post ron, but as I hear that Obama is reading about FDR, I can’t help but wonder who FDR was reading when he was faced with the Great Depression? There’s more to this question than a simple parlor game. I don’t think our answers are found in the details of FDR, but in understanding universal principles.)

This is not the socialist party of yore, it must be another baby boomer gone googoo with the cool-aid.

Now back to Obama. He has never stated he would stop the occupation of Iraq (never); nor the occupation of other sovereign nations throughout the world, and certainly has nothing against US unilateral invasions as a policy, with or without the UN, with or without a coalition, with or without a declaration of war. At least, I cannot find such a promise from his campaign during the primaries (or before) and the national campaign.

He doesn’t represent a new American foreign policy. He may alter it slightly to conform to the Democratic version of the Plutocracy Doctrine, a blend of imperialism and exceptionalism, but that’s about it.

In other words, we (those who want and demand change) are starting at GROUND ZERO with Mr. Obama.

Let’s just get our facts straight as well as our wishful thinking.