It may surprise some of you here that you are NOT really leftists; no, we have bought into this well manufactured mythos, we are, from a spectrum standpoint, centrists, and those to the right of us are, respectfully, right wing. Even if you are a registered Democrat, if you espouse certain right wing notions, like War and corporatism, you are right wing. Those to the left or outside the Democratic Party are referred to, respectfully, as "leftists" for purposes of this polemic.
It's election season. I knew it was only a matter of time. Time for The Attacks, which I totally expected from the neocons, who are in full blown panic mode over Howard Dean and his leadership, a man who has the ability to cut through the political rhetoric and get to the core of an issue. But also, from the leftists, the non-participating, too good to vote, too pure of thought to concede an iota, Leftists. You know who you are. The ones who rail long and hard against things, but mostly , against ...the Democrats. It is clear now that they think a third party can have a chance if they kill off the Democratic Party. But what they rail against now is a new trend, which confounds their goal, that of reasonable populism espoused by our heroes here and elsewhere. This trait of reasonableness is so foreign the left is spinning wildly as they try to make some sense of the whooshing sound they are hearing as progressives by the thousands are exiting the crowded rooms and heading for the liberating fresh air of practical populism. They pipe up once again with their attacks: the Democrats are the same as the republicans, the same, the same, the same, only maybe worse.
Yet, there is a maudlin similarity to the drone of their retread ideas, and for good reason. Latest in a line of naysayers that stretches back to before recorded history, they shake the shaman's staff and proclaims "no progress can be made within the system." And the blue faced acolytes cringing in the shadows of a distant campfire all feel empowered for a second as they all howl in uniform agreement.....and then are cut down by a well organized systemic civilization.
Closed minded pronouncements are nothing new. We have dealt with them forever. What ultimately happens is that progress is made, and it isn't enough, isn't fast enough, isn't far enough, isn't something. But what it is is PROGRESS. There's just no way to fast forward the twenty years it will take to get out of our current Neocon created hole. One thing the far left is good at is sanctimoniously pointing out that things are pretty crappy and unless we change, are only going to get worse. And what do you know, they do. But the change , the progress that moves at its own pace, this is helped from the struggles within the system, because that is what controls things, not the dancing troupe of street performers dancing and chanting for peace, justice or some other admirable goal. We may have formed a ring around the Pentagon during the Vietnam War , and tried to get it to levitate through chanting, but that was a symbolic gesture, not the work involved in prevailing upon the Commander in Chief to give the order to get out.
Thus it is with the far left prophets. They rail against the inequities which we all agree are loathsome, but the painful negotiation with the other side that involves giving something to get something, they cannot bring themselves to this state of mind. Thus, they misread history in it's entirety, thinking everything boils down to a Haymarket Riot when the reality is for every epochal and pivotal revolutionary act, for every sacrifice of a life at the flaming altar of police brutality, there are thousands of hours of negotiation, finnesse, and in the end, compromise. From this, progress is forged, not as a single slab of steel but as a long tempered chain of human desire that spans the continuum of history. Why Howard Dean's ability to produce these results, his long track record of accomplishments towards this end is always missed by the soothsayers of leftist polemic is as plain as the man himself. Its very nature is incomprehensible to the purist. "All or nothing" is a principled stand which , in the minds of those decryers of the Democratic Party, guarantees that someday, when enlightenment strikes, they will get it "all". That the historic and longstanding lifelong result of such actions has been "nothing" seems to be beside the point.
I don't quarrel that the idealism of such lofty stands is admirable. But when the structure is about to collapse, the fact that it is in need of better architecture is lost on those that depend on the structure for their lives. To the leftists, better to let it collapse as a lesson to all those who disagreed with their approach. Onward towards destruction, that is the leftist's cry of progress. Progressivism, and its roots and incarnations practiced by Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Paul Hackett, John Murtha , et al , puts forth a systematic and fundamental change in the landscape that requires as its price hard work, self sacrifice, and teamwork alongside those with whom you have fundamental disagreements about many issues. But you share a common larger goal of progress, and ultimately , change.
To take that shot , as we all believe we can do at DFA, and maybe give a little to get the best result we can, that is what working within the system is about. The power structure responds to the give and take within. The two party system works in America because it is what evolved via the same subtle compromise I speak of. There have always been, and there always will be, those parties on the fringe who are stricter in their adherence to something or belief in a system that has more limited appeal. For over a hundred years, communists and socialists have trod the boards in America in hopes of igniting something. The fact is that American history or popular sentiments just have not embraced them in enough meaningful numbers to create anything except static which arguably inhibits the real progress made by the Democrats. In the meantime, things got pretty good in the 20th century for workers. They may not be where they want, and they may have seen significant backsliding in their advancements since Bushco took the reigns, but there was progress, and don't tell me otherwise.
That's what we are looking at now: a chance to do something meaningful and create the change we seek. That our leader once compromised to get something in return is not symptomatic of betrayal, it's called strength through negotiation. I'm afraid this is not the time or place for a fight for a third party, and giving up the significant negotiating power of the major political party for the brave idealism of third party balkanized squabbling. Not while we can still ride this old donkey a few more miles.
Or , we can refuse to negotiate with these fascist pigs as a matter of principle until we find ourselves doing so through a chain link fence at an undisclosed location.
The choice, my friends, is yours.