An Open Letter to the Left Establishment

Originally Posted on Protest Obama.org

This letter is a call for active support of protest to Michael Moore, Norman Solomon, Katrina van den Heuvel, Michael Eric Dyson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Thomas Frank, Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher Jr., Jesse Jackson Jr., and other high profile progressive supporters of the Obama electoral campaign.

With the Obama administration beginning its third year, it is by now painfully obvious that the predictions of even the most sober Obama supporters were overly optimistic. Rather than an ally, the administration has shown itself to be an implacable enemy of reform.

It has advanced repeated assaults on the New Deal safety net (including the previously sacrosanct Social Security trust fund), jettisoned any hope for substantive health care reform, attacked civil rights and environmental protections, and expanded a massive bailout further enriching an already bloated financial services and insurance industry. It has continued the occupation of Iraq and expanded the war in Afghanistan as well as our government’s covert and overt wars in South Asia and around the globe.

Along the way, the Obama administration, which referred to its left detractors as “f***ing retarded” individuals that required “drug testing,” stepped up the prosecution of federal war crime whistleblowers, and unleashed the FBI on those protesting the escalation of an insane war.

Obama’s recent announcement of a federal worker pay freeze is cynical, mean-spirited “deficit-reduction theater”. Slashing Bush’s plutocratic tax cuts would have made a much more significant contribution to deficit reduction but all signs are that the “progressive” president will cave to Republican demands for the preservation of George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy Few. Instead Obama’s tax cut plan would raise taxes for the poorest people in our country.

The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent – with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda.

We are writing to you because you are well-known writers, bloggers and filmmakers with access to a range of old and new media, and you have in your power the capacity to help reignite the movement which brought millions onto the streets in February of 2003 but which has withered ever since. There are many thousands of progressives who follow your work closely and are waiting for a cue from you and others to act. We are asking you to commit yourself to actively supporting the protests of Obama administration policies which are now beginning to materialize.

In this connection we would like to mention a specific protest: the civil disobedience action being planned by Veterans for Peace involving Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Joel Kovel, Medea Benjamin, Ray McGovern, several armed service veterans and others to take place in front of the White House on Dec. 16th.

Should you commit yourselves to backing this action and others sure to materialize in weeks and months ahead, what would otherwise be regarded as an emotional outburst of the “fringe left” will have a better chance of being seen as expressing the will of a substantial majority not only of the left, but of the American public at large. We believe that your support will help create the climate for larger and increasingly disruptive expressions of dissent – a development that is sorely needed and long overdue.

We hope that we can count on you to exercise the leadership that is required of all of us in these desperate times.

Best Regards,

Sen. James Abourezk

Tariq Ali

Rocky Anderson

Jared Ball

Russel Banks

Thomas Bias

Jean Bricmont

Noam Chomsky

Bruce Dixon

Frank Dorrel

Gidon Eshel

Jamilla El-Shafei

Okla Elliott

Norman Finkelstein

Glen Ford

Joshua Frank

Margaret Flowers M.D.

John Gerassi

Henry Giroux

Matt Gonzalez

Kevin Alexander Gray

Judd Greenstein

DeeDee Halleck

John Halle

Chris Hedges

Doug Henwood

Edward S. Herman

Jack Hirschman

Dahr Jamail

Derrick Jensen

Louis Kampf

Allison Kilkenny

Jamie Kilstein

Joel Kovel

Mark Kurlansky

Peter Linebaugh

Scott McLarty

Cynthia McKinney

Dede Miller

Russell Mokhiber

Roger Morris

Bobby Muller

Christian Parenti

Michael Perelman

Kim Petersen

Peter Phillips

Louis Proyect

Ted Rall

Cindy Sheehan

Chris Spannos

Paul Street

Sunil Sharma

Stephen Pearcy

Jeffrey St. Clair

Len Weinglass

Cornel West

Sherry Wolf

Michael Yates

Mickey Z

Kevin Zeese

Please sign the Open Letter to the Left Establishment.

We are a group of longtime supporters of transformative left and progressive politics who recognized early on the potential consequences of an Obama victory for movements striving for social justice. As a result of our prescient criticisms we were the target of direct hostility, indirect condescension and overt censorship from many “alternative” media outlets as well as banned from the discussions on certain websites. However, we are not seeking an apology, what we’d like now in response is an acknowledgement that the Obama administration deserves outrage and opposition. It is our hope that the figures appealed to in this letter will now stand up and join us in opposing this administration and its reckless policies. Activism should not be partisan. It ought to be principled. Read other articles by Protest, or visit Protest's website.

29 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Max Shields said on December 18th, 2010 at 9:05pm #

    But wait…wait…gay people can now openly serve in Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq and wherever boots must be on the ground preserving the American way of life…it’s a break through…just like the integration of the Army where blacks and white and red and yellow, and brown can die, be maimed and become wards of the VA hospital…or shoot the wife and commit suicide.

    It’s a glorious day to be an American…and if you’re gay, you can hug the one you’re with and shed a tear of joy!!!

  2. hayate said on December 18th, 2010 at 11:04pm #

    Max Shields said on December 18th, 2010 at 9:05pm

    Hey, max, what are you complaining about? These are wars for ziofascism, inc. these newly liberated war criminals will get to die for. They’re just goys, right.

  3. Deadbeat said on December 19th, 2010 at 4:35am #

    I don’t where to start. I recently wrote a lengthy analysis of the role the pseudo-Left played in the weakening of the 2003 anti-war movement and the 2004 Nader/Camejo campaign and now we get this pretense that the withering of the anti-war movement (no mention of the withering of the Green Party) started with Obama. The cause was due to the withdrawal and split within the anti-war movement due to raising focus and linkage of Israel as a major impetus of 9-11 and the focus on the Israel/Palestine and U.S – Israel relationship by a section of the anti-war movement. This is what led to the split between UFPJ and International Answer.

    This was followed by the pseudo-Left’s “failure” to immediately endorse the Nader campaign and the active work by the pseudo-Left to hinder his chances of achieving the 5% threshold that would have made the Green Party a viable Progressive 3rd Party.

    This open letter is an appeal to the “progressive” Democrats which is a total waste of time and energy but most importantly give cover and “credibility” to the pseudo-Left in order to shift the focus away from holding the pseudo-Left accountable for their ACTIONS for the weaken and discombobulated state of the Left.

    Some of the names mentioned here actively sabotaged Nader’s campaign. I direct you to Medea Benjamin who was activity in the Green Party sought to hinder Nader’s ability to get on the 50-state ballot by throwing her support to gadfly, David Cobb in an unnecessary (and undemocratic) primary challenge.

    I posted a link from a 2004 CounterPunch article whereby Joel Kovel also failed to support Nader. The late Howard Zinn actively supported the Anybody-but-Bush/Safe-State strategy. Michael Albert of Z-Magazine was actively calling for a WITHDRAWAL of anti-war activity until after the 2004 elections. Chomsky remained very aloof and cagey until he endorsed Nader in June 2004 too late in the season for signature gathering.

    None of these “Leftist” articulated what was at stake that Nader, the major and most well known anti-war candidate in the race, needed only to pull in around 3 million NEW voters to reach the 5% threshold. Had the Greens achieved this they would have had viability and credibility going into 2008 and would have been eligible for federal matching funds and state-wide ballot access.

    Others like Kevin Zeese and Louis Proyect clearly knows that an appeal to progressive Democrats is a waste of time of energy as they fully supported the 2004 Nader Campaign. So why are they signing onto this futile appeal to progressive Democrats?

    In addition this appeal attempts to rewrite history. The anti-war movement didn’t “wither” because of Obama. It withered because a faction of the anti-war movement began to shine a spotlight on the U.S. – Israel relationship as the main reason for the 9-11 attacks. This spotlight is what caused UFPJ to split from International Answer. Nader himself began to even talk (in un-Chomsky-like fashion) about Zionist influence over the U.S. control of the Congress. The actions of the pseudo-Left is what lead to the “withering” of the anti-war movement and their “failure” to strongly endorse Nader. Laying the blame onto Obama is classic bait-and-switch. Had there been a strong and viable Green Party in 2008 it would have factored into Obama calculations of whether or not to run for office.

    Appeals to progressive Democrats is no substitute for the Left’s being its own counterforce. But unfortunately since the Left is not into scrutinizing and analyzing itself for a number of uncomfortable reasons all we get is a bogus appeals which essentially is the same old same old bait-and-switch.

    Only when the Left takes an honest examination of itself and only when the Left begin to deal with Zionism WITHIN its own ranks can their be a real change. Progressive Democrats are not the problem — the pseudo-Left is the main problem.

  4. bozh said on December 19th, 2010 at 7:53am #

    i do not think that any movement in u.s wld ever bring any change for better.
    u.s had always been ruled by only one movement: sybaritism. thus far only its agents get selected-elected to congress.

    sybaritism has only one politico-military-governmental party. this arrangement works near-perfectly for that movment.
    of course, we are not sure that plutocratic governance in u.s wld ever allow a viable second party to function freely; if at all? nx

  5. Don Hawkins said on December 19th, 2010 at 9:33am #

    Well your last comment maybe true Bozh and here in the States there will be movement alright in a few years a blink of an eye of human’s Watch the report’s out of California on about Wednesday and so far nothing has been said about levees like most infrastructure here in the States old. Only the beginning.

  6. hayate said on December 19th, 2010 at 1:00pm #

    Deadbeat

    Nice work.

    A progressive democrat is like a “compassionate conservative” or a leftwing zionist. Simple minded labels to hook the unwary.

    An example how these so-called progressives will sabotage dissent (or attempted to in this particular case):

    When bush sr. was getting ready to attack Iran in ’91, a protest march was organised in the san fran bay area to take place in san francisco. Immediately the zionist implants in the orgs to be involved went to work sabotaging it. They stipulated they, and their respective captive orgs, would not agree to march if Palestinian orgs were involved. Eventually a compromise was reached. There would be 2 marches, about 2 weeks apart, the first would be without Palestinian organisers, as the Jewish zionist bigots wanted, the 2nd would be with Palestinians.

    The ironic thing is that these zionist saboteurs, in their attempt to hamstring the protest actually doubled the effect of it. :D Both marches were a huge success and drew close to 100k people. I wasn’t able to attend the first one, but did make the 2nd, so in my case, having 2 marches worked splendidly, since I was able to attend one of them, instead of none, as what would have happened had there only been one march.

  7. Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 3:15pm #

    Other than calling “people” trumped up names, what, hayate, are you actually doing with your life? What are your contributions. You know life is short. Perhaps there’s something beyond your consistent negativity here that you could take that energy and use it for at least TRYING….

  8. hayate said on December 19th, 2010 at 4:44pm #

    Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 3:15pm

    Got to keep those wars for israel going, eh, max.

  9. Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 4:49pm #

    hayate it is clear you have no life. And the reason why I know you’ve done absolutely nothing with your life is because you have the worst posts on DV and you post all day and into the night.

    You have nothing against Zionism or pseudo-leftists or whatever; because if you did, if you really had something worth doing you wouldn’t be here day and night.

  10. hayate said on December 19th, 2010 at 5:02pm #

    Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 3:15pm

    Max Shields said on December 19th, 2010 at 4:49pm

    Oh, come on, max. Don’t be so sore about my satirical:

    hayate said on December 18th, 2010 at 11:04pm

    you’re not dating a soldier, so dry up and stop the melodramatics.

    :D

  11. hayate said on December 19th, 2010 at 5:15pm #

    An Open Letter to the Left Establishment

    by Protest Obama.org

    What if the effort being put into making obama join the human race was instead put into making a viable alternative to this endless series of obamas and bushes?

    As Zhuang Zhou put it, you are polishing a brick to make a mirror.

  12. Deadbeat said on December 19th, 2010 at 7:41pm #

    Max Shields writes

    Other than calling- “people” trumped up names, what, hayate, are you actually doing with your life? What are your contributions. You know life is short. Perhaps there’s something beyond your consistent negativity here that you could take that energy and use it for at least TRYING….

    Max has used this strawman several times in the past and I want to take a moment to address his rhetoric. For the past several days I have written how the pseudo-Left disrupted the very real possibility of a viable 3rd Party to the two-party duopoly. I was deeply involved in that initiative. What my involvement revealed is how phony and corrupted the “Left” is due to the way Zionists have embedded themselves on the Left. Prior to my involvement I had no idea of even what Zionism was and I had come to respect these pseudo-Left [mis]leaders. But it took the anti-war movement of 2003 and the 2004 Nader campaigned to reveal the true nature of the pseudo-Left.

    What I’ve report here is from first hand knowledge and my DIRECT experience from my participation with the Green Party and the 2004 Nader campaign. Thus my direct experience with the “Left” was one of betrayal, duplicity, hypocrisy and distrust.

    And unfortunately these same cast of characters, rather than atone for their role in weakening the anti-war movement and failure to build up the Green Party through the 2004 Nader Campaign can only now offer pretensions, historical rewrites and weak appeals to Democratic Party adherents.

    Thus until there is an honest and open discussion and reflection on the Left about the Left I personally have no desire to ally myself with phonies, frauds, backstabbers, and Zionists.

  13. demize said on December 20th, 2010 at 8:29pm #

    As much as I respect some of the names on this list I find it extremely naive to think that petitioning an arch crimminal will somehow make him change his ways. Obama is wedded to whatever policy his paymasters direct him to adopt. He is a hollow man, evil in that he willfully perpetuates the most abject violence as daily course. No convincing through anything other than a great mechanism physic ally preventing him or others like him from carrying out their actions will be an exercise I’m futility. But if it makes you feel better, eh.

  14. bozh said on December 21st, 2010 at 6:58am #

    however, i do not call nader a “leftist”. he does not stand, as far as i know, for a remake of the present structure of u.s governance or society.

    i also believe that there is no Left in u.s. there r a few socialists in u.s; however, few r allowed even to post on most internet sites.
    i am not allowed to post on many sites, as well.
    i do not think that calling asocialists “pseudo-leftists” explains the situation. antiwar movement in u.s is not socialistic; i.e., left, but center or even right wing.

    and the antiwar movement in canada and u.s approbate some aggressions; notably the recent four serb aggressions.
    the only antiwar org that condemns all wars of aggression is vancouver StopWar.ca; which was founded in ’02.

    but may not be any longer because of many orgs that joined it in late ’02.
    each of which has own self-interest in mind.

    we had ‘jewish’, palestinian, and other orgs. ‘jewish’ org cld never agree with the palestinians. at least one meeting ended abruptly because of the dispute between ‘jews’ and palestinians.

    yet StopWar.ca had a clear agenda: that interethnic or international disputes shld not be settled by war.
    we also included palestina in that category of disputes. some people left StopWar.ca just because that.
    still others made other demands. and so it went. tnx

  15. Deadbeat said on December 23rd, 2010 at 12:21pm #

    The comments by bozh are full of irrelevancies and tangents that its distorts and deflects from the seriousness of the analysis regarding the pseudo-Left. The analysis is the ROLE the pseudo-Left played in blocking the chance for a VIABLE 3rd party alternative to the Democratic Party; the consequences of that “failure” (actually a success) by the pseudo-Left; their rewriting of the history; and false appeal to “progressive” DEMOCRATS.

    however, i do not call nader a “leftist”. he does not stand, as far as i know, for a remake of the present structure of u.s governance or society.

    Actually this is misleading. Nader is not a “leftist” in the sense that Nader is not an anti-capitalist but that is IRRELEVANT. The accurate description of Nader is a PROGRESSIVE POPULIST and he was 3 million new voters shy of achieving the 5% threshold that would have made the Green Party a viable PROGRESSIVE 3rd Party alternative to the Democratic Party.

    i also believe that there is no Left in u.s. there r a few socialists in u.s; however, few r allowed even to post on most internet sites. i am not allowed to post on many sites, as well.

    This is irrelevant. The point of the 2004 Nader candidacy was to SET THE STAGE and provide an INSTITUTIONAL framework and underpinning whereby Left-wing ideas could be disseminated to citizens interested in Green Party politics. Where Bozh revels his obvious IGNORANCE is that Nader’s running mate, the late-great Peter Camajo WAS a Socialist and a long time LEFTIST.

    i do not think that calling asocialists “pseudo-leftists” explains the situation. antiwar movement in u.s is not socialistic; i.e., left, but center or even right wing.

    This reveals Bozh obvious ignorance and desire to DEFLECT analysis of those “activists” who embed themselves into Left-wing politics only to sabotage it. The term “pseudo-Left” aptly describes and identifies who these people are. Clearly if bozh doesn’t want people to LEARN and be EDUCATED it makes sense that he will want to deflect discussion and minimize the use of the term “pseudo-Left”.

    and the antiwar movement in canada and u.s approbate some aggressions; notably the recent four serb aggressions.the only antiwar org that condemns all wars of aggression is vancouver StopWar.ca; which was founded in ’02.
    but may not be any longer because of many orgs that joined it in late ’02.
    each of which has own self-interest in mind.

    This is totally irrelevant since the discussion is about American politics and tangential to the discussion of how the U.S. anti-war movement split on the issue of Israel/Palestine.

    we had ‘jewish’, palestinian, and other orgs. ‘jewish’ org cld never agree with the palestinians. at least one meeting ended abruptly because of the dispute between ‘jews’ and palestinians.

    This is totally irrelevant since the discussion is about American politics and tangential to the discussion of how the anti-war movement split on the issue of Israel/Palestine.

    yet StopWar.ca had a clear agenda: that interethnic or international disputes shld not be settled by war.we also included palestina in that category of disputes. some people left StopWar.ca just because that. still others made other demands. and so it went. tnx

    This is totally irrelevant since the discussion is about American politics and tangential to the discussion of how the U.S. anti-war movement split on the issue of Israel/Palestine.

    However what bozh could have done to make his tangential topic of StopWar.ca relevant to the discussion is to write about the growing influence of Zionism in Canada — a topic he refuses to address and how these Zionists are using their power to influence the Canada government. Both Shabnam and me already posted links to a report on Al Jazzera for bozh that scratches the surface. Thus as bozh resides in Canada it would be worthwhile for him to provide some analysis on the effects of Zionist power not only on the Canadian government but on the Canadian Left itself (since he observes that no Left exist in the U.S implying that one exist in Canada). Clearly it is in the interest of Zionists to embed themselves within the Canadian left-wing organizations in order to control the outcome and politics of these organizations in the same way the pseudo-Left did to Nader and the Green Party and currently do to the American Left.

  16. bozh said on December 23rd, 2010 at 1:45pm #

    thank our devil [ok, we had god long enough-- too damn long] that at least few people look at all that happens is connected.
    we look at history as a flowing whole; no event stands in isolation from any other.

    also no utterance stands for self by self– it is connected to every other.

    so, politocos’, median warnings: stay with the topic, be relevant, etc., appears as a very subtle means of controlling parameters of allowable discourse.
    so, what turns to matter, be relevant, staying topical is always what pleases politicians, editors, special interest, talk show hosts [such as larry king].

    and sadly, 99.9999% of people fall this ruse. do i have to also! how about my expectation that 99% of amers will vote for rich people’s agents?? anyone want to bet that, say, only 90% wld do so!
    no, i don’t blame them for it! they have been well trained! tnx

  17. Deadbeat said on December 26th, 2010 at 1:12pm #

    Who comprises the “Left Establishment”?

    The opening paragraph of this article leads you to believe that the “Left Establishment” are limited to the progressive Democrats cited in the opening paragraph and not the signatories. But taking a stroll on Global Exchange reveals some interesting facts. As they say “follow the money”. Published on Global Exchange is their 2006 financial statement which makes interesting read on how the pseudo-Left builds a nice racket for themselves with these “foundations”.

    This little blurb was interesting …

    NOTE I – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

    The Benjamin Family Fund is a Foundation set up by the Benjamin Family of which Medea Benjamin, a current staff and board member of Global Exchange, is a member. The Benjamin Family Fund donated $60,000 and $94,700 for the year ended December 31, 2006 and and 2005 respectively.

    Nice way to shelter some dough huh. These are the same folks who complain about “CORPORATIONS”.

    Benjamin is the same person who was a major supporter in the 2004 stop-Nader efforts. I guess you can be an AFFORD to be an “activist” when you have that kind of money.

    Also over 30% (over $1.4 million) of Global Exchanges budget is related to TRAVEL. That’s a pretty huge CARBON FOOTPRINT and money that could have been saved. Yeah gotta love these hypocrites.

  18. Deadbeat said on December 26th, 2010 at 1:47pm #

    bozh writes …

    and sadly, 99.9999% of people fall this ruse. do i have to also! how about my expectation that 99% of amers will vote for rich people’s agents?? anyone want to bet that, say, only 90% wld do so!no, i don’t blame them for it! they have been well trained! tnx

    Again bozh you reveal your ignorance about American politics. Only 60% of Americans participated in the last Presidential election not 99.9%. And I believe that 40% voted in the recent Congressional elections. Thus a large number of eligible voters do not participate.

    However bozh which you choose to dismiss is that Nader and the Green Party, had it not been sabotaged by the pseudo-Left, had a REAL and VIABLE chance to reach those voters thus making the Green Party a real INSTITUTIONAL outlet of Left-wing ideas and CLASS politics. This was a major reason why the ISO was a huge supporter of Nader’s 2004 campaign. At least the ISO adhere to principles and distinguished themselves from the pseudo-Left.

    It would be helpful bozh if you’d get your facts straight rather than consuming the bandwidth here with your exaggerated and diversionary prose.

  19. bozh said on December 26th, 2010 at 2:50pm #

    DB,
    u mean to say that those people who haven’t cast a ballot against u.s aggressions and continuance of them, have not, in fact tacitly, approbated the wars in question?

    u want to have actual vote of the abstainees for wars before we count them in for not caring either way or for being for u.s wars!
    u have also taken out the above quote from a larger context and not to mention all i have written to date. here’s the expanded quote:

    “so, politocos’, median warnings: stay with the topic, be relevant, etc., appears as a very subtle means of controlling parameters of allowable discourse.
    so, what turns to matter is, being relevant, staying topical is always what pleases politicians, editors, special interest, talk show hosts [such as larry king].
    and sadly, 99.9999% of people fall this ruse. do i have to also! how about my expectation that 99% of amers will vote for rich people’s agents?? anyone want to bet that, say, only 90% wld do”.

    i still expect that of the ballots cast, 99% wld cast the ballot for warlords and masters of people. tnx

  20. Deadbeat said on December 26th, 2010 at 9:21pm #

    bozh writes …

    DB, u mean to say that those people who haven’t cast a ballot against u.s aggressions and continuance of them, have not, in fact tacitly, approbated the wars in question?

    No bozh I meant what I stated. What you are reading into what I wrote is your own strawman.

    For example bozh you may not be aware but in many states if you have a felony conviction you lose your voting rights. This is an unconstitutional practice but it prevent many African American males from exercising their rights. There are many reason why 40 to nearly half the electorate do not vote. This is why the behavior of the pseudo-Left was so damaging to the Left as the possibility of having a growing institutional framework and viable political party had Nader achieved the 5% threshold would have been able to reach out to the disenfranchised and disillusioned voters. This would have provided an institutional outlet for the Left and and challenge to the Democrats.

    Clearly you have a mean-streak toward the American voters bozh. It would be more productive if you take a serious look at what’s going on with Zionism in Canada. Denial and diversion is how Zionists with the aid of the pseudo-Left were as able to increase their power and influence in the U.S.

  21. Deadbeat said on December 27th, 2010 at 12:07am #

    Benjamin got the Benjamins …

    The Benjamin Family Fund is a Foundation set up by the Benjamin Family of which Medea Benjamin, a current staff and board member of Global Exchange, is a member. The Benjamin Family Fund donated $60,000 and $94,700 for the year ended December 31, 2006 and and 2005 respectively.

    And …

    Also over 30% (over $1.4 million) of Global Exchanges budget is related to TRAVEL. That’s a pretty huge CARBON FOOTPRINT and money that could have been saved. Yeah gotta love these hypocrites.

    A thought just occurred to me. It was CLEARLY in Benjamin’s financial interest to stop Nader. Think about it for a moment. Had Nader really built a viable Green Party that would have attracted many disenfranchised voters chapters would have been able to spring up.

    Recall what Zeese recently wrote in his article …

    While education and organization are critical ingredients to bringing change, this is a slow process and many of the issues the nation faces are urgent

    Really! According to the pseudo-Left defeating Bush was the most urgent. In other words there is ALWAYS urgency. Had the Nader and the Green Party succeeded in 2004 then this formation would have been in place for 6 years. That is 6 years of EDUCATIONAL opportunities and mass OUTREACH that was defeated by the pseudo-Left. There would be no need for Ms. Benjamin to jet set especially in the age of the INTERNET and a viable Green Party having mass appeal.

    In other words not only is it in the interest of Zionism and Capitalism to maintain a weaken Left but also in the FINANCIAL interest of the “Left Establishment”.

  22. bozh said on December 27th, 2010 at 8:48am #

    db
    why don’t u tell us the % of eligible voters who are not permitted to vote? tell us, please, how many of eligible voters wld have voted, anyway, and for whom?

    and tell us why 99% of voters vote for the abrogation of the right to cast ballot of some people?

    tell us, please, does balloting in u.s have any purpose or value? and isn’t that one cause why lots of people don’t mind missing this show? tnx

  23. shabnam said on January 7th, 2011 at 10:15am #

    {Albert would evidently use this canard as a justification for removing the open letter from the site after having ran it on the site for a less than a day, replacing it with a rebuttal by Bill Fletcher which was front paged for a full three days.}

    Zmag like CPD is helping US government/Zionist agenda not directly but in a clever way hidden in their slogan and petitions that they support. CPD with no shame has become a front for US government’s destabilization project in the targeted counties such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other countries. Zmag tries to brainwash American people with lies about the Iranian election ‘fraud’ HOAX to support ‘Green’ that is promoted by Obama and the Judeofascists. Zmag post articles on the front page written by the Iranian monarchist turned ‘left’, Saeed Ranema, who cooperates with NED agents, Payam Akhavan, openly demanding the overthrown of the government in Iran, and Ramin Jahanbegloo. Zmag, however, refuses to post Edward Herman’s article on the front page.

    Chris Hedges in “The Left Has Nowhere to Go” based on many quotes from Nader has warned the pseudo left about their behavior that mislead American people and asking them not to vote for a WAR MONGER pro Zionist agenda again in 2012.

    Nader is afraid the phony ‘left’ repeat the same disaster in the coming 2012 election again and give the war monger another 4 years. He writes:
    {A vote for Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008 was an act of defiance. A vote for Obama and the Democrats was an act of submission. We cannot afford to be submissive anymore.
    “The more outrageous the Republicans become, the weaker the left becomes,” Nader said when I reached him at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. “The more outrageous they become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats.”}
    Nader fears a repeat of the left’s cowardice in the next election, a cowardice that has further empowered the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, maintained the role of the Democratic Party as a lackey for corporations, and accelerated the reconfiguration of the country into a neo-feudalist state.
    {http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22637}
    Nader said:

    {“The left has nowhere to go,” Nader said. “Obama knows it. The corporate Democrats know it. There will be criticism by the left of Obama this year and then next year they will all close ranks and say ‘Do you want Mitt Romney? Do you want Sarah Palin? Do you want Newt Gingrich?’ It’s very predictable. There will be a year of criticism and then it will all be muted. They don’t understand that even if they do not have any place to go, they ought to fake it. They should fake going somewhere else or staying home to increase the receptivity to their demands. But because they do not make any demands, they are complicit with corporate power.

    “Corporate power makes demands all the time,” Nader went on. “It pulls on the Democrats and the Republicans in one direction. By having this nowhere-to-go mentality and without insisting on demands as the price of your vote, or energy to get out the vote, they have reduced themselves to a cipher. They vote. The vote totals up. But it means nothing.”
    There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse. McCain, like Bush, exposes the naked face of corporate power. Obama, who professes to support core liberal values while carrying out policies that mock these values, mutes and disempowers liberals, progressives and leftists. Environmental and anti-war groups, who plead with Obama to address their issues, are little more than ineffectual supplicants.}

    Obama has brought Iran much closer to state of war with his illegal sanction. He must be overthrown in 2012. He has been very successful to implement Zionist agenda in all of the targeted countries including Partition in Sudan where NO LEFT including Black Agenda Report has any objection.
    I don’t know why the petition ‘Open Letter to the Left Establishment’ in your article does not include name of Kim Petersen that was included in another article posted on December 18, 2010.

    {http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/an-open-letter-to-the-left-establishment/}

  24. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 11:26pm #

    bozh writes …

    db why don’t u tell us the % of eligible voters who are not permitted to vote? tell us, please, how many of eligible voters wld have voted, anyway, and for whom?

    Since you are interested in that number bozh, I’ll leave that up to you to investigate. There are approximately 2% of the American working population is incarcerated in the United States. In addition people who have felony conviction even AFTER they have served their sentences are NOT eligible to vote. So you have to add the total number of incarcerated to the total number who are not incarcerated but have felony convictions.

    Many eligible voters cannot physically get to the polls so they are unable to participate. Also there are cases of voter fraud where people are illegally scrubbed from the roles.

    Also bozh illieracy is a major problem in the USA. There is a sizable number of eligible voters who cannot read especially in the South.

    But mostly bozh many eligible voters don’t vote because they don’t see the point to voting which is why the action of the pseudo-Left to sabotage the Nader/Green Party efforts in 2004 was so damaging.

    and tell us why 99% of voters vote for the abrogation of the right to cast ballot of some people?

    tell us, please, does balloting in u.s have any purpose or value? and isn’t that one cause why lots of people don’t mind missing this show? tnx

  25. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 11:32pm #

    bozh writes …

    and tell us why 99% of voters vote for the abrogation of the right to cast ballot of some people?

    Can you be more specific where this occurred? You many be confusion a state-wide initiative with national issues. I don’t recall this being a national issue since 1964. Also I disagree with your 99%. That hyperbole since you asked me to offer a percentage which implies that you yourself don’t know what the actual percentage is.

    tell us, please, does balloting in u.s have any purpose or value? and isn’t that one cause why lots of people don’t mind missing this show? tnx

    Balloting has value which is why those that do vote do so for the “lesser evil”. What is missing from the Left is a electoral expression. The point is the system has to be confronted on ALL fronts not just a single one. Which is once again why the action of the pseudo-Left in 2003 and 2004 was so devastating and exposed the corruption of the Left.

  26. Deadbeat said on January 7th, 2011 at 11:39pm #

    shabnam quote Chris Hedges …

    A vote for Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008 was an act of defiance. A vote for Obama and the Democrats was an act of submission. We cannot afford to be submissive anymore.

    A vote for Nader or McKinney were both empty gestures compared to a single vote for Nader running as an Independent/Green Party in 2004. Nader had real support and was a huge threat to the system in 2004. The sabotage of his campaign by the pseudo-Left in 2004 greatly weaken him for 2008. Rather than running jointly Nader and McKinney ran separately thus splitting and weakening the ranks of the Left.

    The pseudo-Left also inflated GWB to such a level that people was desperate for any Democratic victory in 2008. Obama was able to fill the void that the pseudo-Left help to create. While Hedges has done an excellent job critiquing Liberals he is oblivious to the role of the psued0-Left and the influence of Zionism on the Left.

  27. shabnam said on January 8th, 2011 at 1:46am #

    Thanks Deadbeat for your comment. Your response to the following lines:
    {A vote for Nader or McKinney were both empty gestures compared to a single vote for Nader running as an Independent/Green Party in 2004.}

    can be found in the following quote:

    “A vote for Nader or McKinney were both empty gestures compared to a single vote for Nader running as an Independent/Green Party in 2004.”

    I don’t think Chris Hedges wanted to split the votes. Everyone in politics knows that you should not split the votes if you want to win, therefore, Hedges meant choosing one candidate from these two and present him/her as the final candidate. He is saying either candidate, Nader OR Cynthia McKinney would have been good as an candidate of the green party against Obama to show act of DEFIANCE.

    Hedges wants to start from somewhere to establish the idea that people should vote for someone who fight for their interest not the Wall Street. Nader says the same thing, NOT to choose THE LESSER EVIL.
    You write:
    {While Hedges has done an excellent job critiquing Liberals he is oblivious to the role of the psued0-Left and the influence of Zionism on the Left.}

    I chose this article because I found number of good lines in it. Chris Hedges does not want to run for the presidency but wants to prevent the ‘progressive’ making the same mistake as did in 2008. He believes:

    {There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse.}
    Nader said:
    “Corporate power makes demands all the time,” Nader went on. “It pulls on the Democrats and the Republicans in one direction. By having this nowhere-to-go mentality and without insisting on demands as the price of your vote, or energy to get out the vote, they have reduced themselves to a cipher. They vote. The vote totals up. But it means nothing.”

    So, where did Nader in his critics of Obama confront the influence of Zionism on the ‘left’? Nader in general hardly talks about Zionism and its influence on the ‘left’. He does not claim he is a LEFTIST. Hedges’ article is mainly written based on Nader’s words. Nader wants the left to organize:

    {Every major movement starts with field organizers, the farmers, unions, and the civil rights movement,” Nader said. “But there is nothing out there. We need to start learning from what was done in the past. All over the country people are pissed off. They hate Wall Street. They know they are being gouged.}

    Yet, neither Nader nor Hedges have supported and signed a petition with hidden agenda like “neither imperialist war, nor saddam dictatorship”, which really meant regime change through the Zionist war. Or
    “neither imperialist war, nor theocracy in Iran” which really means ‘regime change’ through military attack or ‘green revolution’ supported by the closet Zionists, HOPI, CPD. This slogan has HIDDEN agenda which made Anti War in Britain to throw HOPI out of their organization because they correctly said: Anti war has the responsibility to prevent war not to help the war mongers’ agenda to carry “regime change”.

  28. Deadbeat said on January 8th, 2011 at 3:54am #

    Hi Shabnam and I appreciate your contributions to this topic and your perspectives. I’ll clarify my critique of Chris Hedges and put Nader and 2008 into perspective.

    There is a recent tendency by those on the Left/pseudo-Left who are critical of Obama to fail to put 2008 into its proper perspective. The tendency is to talk about the 2008 Presidential campaign outside of the context of the 2000 and 2004 election campaign of Ralph Nader. In other words to fully understand the 2008 campaign the conditions that existed especially in 2004 must be brought into its proper context.

    If you read my initial comment in this thread you see where I provided that context. In 2000 Nader achieved 2.74% of the vote as the Green Party candidate and going into 2004 if Nader and the Green could gain about 3 million new voters, the Green Party would have achieve the 5% threshold which would have made the Green Party a viable 3rd Party eligible for federal campaign funds and state-wide ballot access.

    Such an achievement would have given the Greens credibility and allow the Greens to become a viable Left alternative to the Democrats. In addition due to the huge participation by citizens in the 2003 anti-war movement, the 2004 Nader campaign represented the electoral expression of the anti-war movement. These backdrops are clearly missing in from the authors of this appeal and by Hedges in his critiques.

    But what happened. As I’ve written over the past 5 years here on DV, the pseudo-Left SABOTAGED this opportunity for the Left to build an institutional framework. Since the United States is a winner-take-all system, lesser-evilism is part of the electoral strategy. Most people who are on the margins will continue to vote for the Democrats because they are aware on how vile the Republican are. However with a VIABLE alternative, people would be willing to vote for the Greens. So WHY did the pseudo-Left sabotage this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity — an opportunity not present for the Left since the era of Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party (ca. 1914).

    I don’t need to repeat the WHY as it is rhetorical. We know WHY. The WHY is because the pseudo-Left’s is well embedded in the American Left and the real threat the anti-war movement posed not only to the Democrats who are firmly control by Zionists like Hiam Saban but that International Answer also attracted many anti-Zionists into the anti-war movement. In other words the 2003 anti-war movement and the 2004 Nader campaign proved to be too dangerous and was quashed by the pseudo-Left.

    During the 2004 campaign, Nader consistently polled around 5% — exactly what was needed to achieve viability. However none of the major “Left” personality — personalities who are now signatories of this appeal to Progressive Democrats — came out in firm support of Nader. For example, Medea Benjamin worked to sabotage Nader bid as the Green Party candidate by throwing her support for the gadfly David Cobb. Neither this appeal nor Hedges writings hold any of these pseudo-Leftists accountable. In fact Hedges continues to embraces members of the pseudo-Left.

    The success of the pseudo-Left in sabotaging Nader’s 2004 campaign, placed both Nader and the Green Party in an extremely weaken condition going into 2008. The Green Party LOST ballot lines that Nader achieved for the Green after the 2000 elections by running David Cobb in 2004. Nader himself could not get on all the ballots in 2004 and spent heaps of money fighting court challenges out of pocket because he could not get the institutional support that would have been provided by him running as a Green in 2004.

    He is saying either candidate, Nader OR Cynthia McKinney would have been good as an candidate of the green party against Obama to show act of DEFIANCE.

    It’s easy for the pseudo-Left to PRETEND defiance in 2008 knowing full well that both Nader and the Greens was neutered by the outcome of 2004 due to the actions by the pseudo-Left. This is EXACTLY how the pseudo-Left plays the game. A vote for a neutered Nader and Green Party McKinney was NOT an act of defiance. It was an merely an ACT. In the game of “lesser-evilism” of 2008 both Nader and McKinney were not even factors and both were no real threat. This is why the pseudos in 2008 could put up a FACADE. For example Glen Ford, supported the Democrat Howard Dean in 2004 never mentioning the Nader threat, its possible impact, and what it could mean for African Americans. The same was true of Howard Zinn who supported John Kerry via “Anybody but Bush/safe state”. The same was true of Noam Chomsky who initially supported John Kerry and didn’t commit to Nader until June of 2004 — much too late to submit signatures for ballot access and very late in the Green Party primary where David Cobb become the Green Party standard bearer. The same was true of Medea Benjamin and Ted Glick who supported gadfly Cobb over Nader. Even the Marxist Joel Kovel was against Nader. If DEFIANCE was such a big deal why didn’t these “Leftists” do so when it REALLY mattered? Again this is a question that Hedges is too oblivious to consider.

    So, where did Nader in his critics of Obama confront the influence of Zionism on the ‘left’? Nader in general hardly talks about Zionism and its influence on the ‘left’. He does not claim he is a LEFTIST. Hedges’ article is mainly written based on Nader’s words. Nader wants the left to organize:

    I was deeply involved in the 2004 Nader campaign and much of what I write here is based on my direct experience with that campaign because I realize the radical nature of that campaign as did others on the Left like Louis Proyect who incredibly signed onto this petition knowing full well that an appeal to Progressive Democrats is meaningless. Nader did in fact address Israel in his campaign speeches and referred to Washington as “Israeli occupied territory”.

    You are right that Nader is NOT a Leftist. Nader is best described as a PROGRESSIVE POPULIST. But regardless he was “radical” enough to challenge the duopoly to become a VIABLE “left-wing” threat to the Democrats, provided a progressive institutional framework for the Left, and become the electoral expression of the anti-war movement. Thus 2004 was a turning point in American politics. But what it turned into was the expression of Zionist control over the American Left.

    {Every major movement starts with field organizers, the farmers, unions, and the civil rights movement,” Nader said. “But there is nothing out there. We need to start learning from what was done in the past. All over the country people are pissed off. They hate Wall Street. They know they are being gouged.}

    The problem here is that Zionists are embedded at every level of “grassroots” left-wing politics. What is needed is real grassroots anti-Capitalist and ANTI-ZIONISTS activists. IMO Left-wing Zionists must be EXPOSED and ROOTED OUT of Left-wing politics before there can be real change. I think times are changing and more anti-Zionist leftist are finding their voice permitting people to rethink all of the Zionist indoctrinations and assumptions.

    Like Capitalism, we’ll see how Zionists try to re-invent themselves so that they can remain embedded on the Left in order to keep it in a weaken and disrupted state. This appeal to Progressive Democrats labeling them as “Left Establishment” and by omitting a lot of the context that I’ve included here is IMO part of the propaganda of Zionist reinvention for 2011.

  29. shabnam said on January 8th, 2011 at 4:52pm #

    Deadbeat:
    Thank you very much for your comment. It gives a lot of good information. I appreciate it.

    During the 2004 election, I remember the closet Zionists told people not to waste your votes on someone like Ralph Nader who has no chance of winning, and cast your vote for Kerry, who like Hillary voted for the Iraq war. I am fairly confident that if Obama was in the race and had been elected to the senate at the time, he more likely, would have voted for the war like them.
    {These backdrops are clearly missing in from the authors of this appeal and by Hedges in his critiques.}

    I agree with you. But I don’t think Chris Hedges is a ‘leftist’. He has never claimed that, as far as his biography shows, he has leftist credential. I think Obama’s supporters, liberals and Zionist liberals wrongly are labeled as ‘left’ by the Zionist media. I do not think the true left ever voted for Obama. The media repeatedly identifies Obama’s policy as ‘leftist’ policy. They claim Obama has turned to the center after his defeat in November. To me, this labeling is nothing but rubbish. Obama has followed a right wing policy since his selection to the throne.

    Chris Hedges is working for the NATION magazine, according to the Wikipedia, which is a liberal pro Obama publication dominated by the Zionist pro Israel. Apparently, he is fed up with the situation and wants American people not to repeat the same mistake. It is Nader, who wants people to break with the past and abandon the idea of choosing the lesser evil; instead he wants them to vote according to the interest of the working people not the Wall Street, if they cannot then they must stay home.

    I agree with you that the pseudo-Left should be exposed fully because they have done nothing except fooling the public to focus on imperialism, on the surface of course, otherwise they have done nothing against imperialism either, to divert attention away from Israel and Zionism which is the face of imperialism of our time.
    This does not mean that US imperialism is off the hook. What we are saying is that Zionism has sold its own plan, to destabilize and partition the regional countries in order to destroy her enemies and sold it to the American elite as AMERICAN INTEREST. Unfortunately, American elite has accepted the Zionist plan and is cooperating with the Zionist fifth column to strengthen its own position to remain in power as a partner.
    {In the game of “lesser-evilism” of 2008 both Nader and McKinney were not even factors and both were no real threat.}
    I agree with you again that neither of them were factors. To elect Obama to the throne, the Zionists did not go after Obama to push him out of the race. In fact, it was Hillary Clinton who used the race card for the first time against “Barak Husain Obama’ but IT WAS TOO LATE and she could not help her position.
    Beside, Hillary Clinton is a trusted Zionist. The Zionists needed to change US image by bringing someone like Obama from the black community because Black was viewed a ‘victim’, like the population of the targeted countries. The rest is history and Obama has performed his game very well. To say that he is interested in ‘diplomacy’ but in private intensifying the war plan, according to Zionist advisors, has been exposed to everyone. Thus, people find him worse than George Bush.
    Please don’t forget that President in the US is not elected according to the highest percentage of the People’s vote but should receive the highest number of the Electoral College. Obama with 52 percent of the votes won the presidency against McCain with 48 percent. The winning factor was due to much higher number of the Electoral College that Obama received. So, it is not surprising when people are saying he was selected by the Wall Street.
    {The problem here is that Zionists are embedded at every level of “grassroots” left-wing politics. What is needed is real grassroots anti-Capitalist and ANTI-ZIONISTS activists.}

    I am with you. Due to Palestinian struggle against Zionism and formation of resistance groups in the region, I think, the Zionists cannot easily fool others anymore. For example: Noam Chomsky’s latest article shows that he uses apartheid state to describe Israel where in the past he was reluctant to use the right term. He presents, in his latest article, Israel as an apartheid state like South Africa.