The contrast between the debates of the two parties is quite stark. The notion that both parties and their candidates are the “same” is wrongheaded. There are differences and they were on display last night on a whole range of issues. Undoubtedly, these differences will figure into the decision of the millions who vote in the primaries and general election next year. It’s pretty amazing how much the political conversation and climate have changed, compared to a few years ago when Washington was fixated on deficit reduction. Entitlement reform (read cuts) and tax breaks for “job creators” went unmentioned last night. Economic justice, even to a degree racial justice, money in politics, bank reform, women’s equality, military restraint, privacy rights, and climate change, were front and center. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders acquitted themselves quite well in the eyes of millions, if not the “bubble world” of some on the left. My guess is that a lot of working people, broadly and diversely defined, were generally happy with what they heard. Finally, when taking into account utterly backward positions of and divisions within the Republican Party and the tenor and substance of the debate yesterday, it is hard not to be cautiously optimistic about the outcome of next year’s election.
This is an article that I wrote two years ago; in light of what is going on now in Washingtion, you might find it of some interest. Sam
The settlement reached more than a week ago to reopen the federal government constituted a major victory for democratic governance. It firmly rebuffed a reckless attempt by a small group of right-wing extremists to leverage the routine lifting of the debt ceiling and funding of government operations (what the right wing calls “forcing events”) into something much more serious and consequential.
Defunding Obamacare and winning other White House concessions by undemocratic means was to be but the first trophy in a far more ambitious and longer term power play by a reactionary clique and their big-pocketed financial backers to reverse the 2012 election results (which left them, much to their surprise, in a subordinate position in Washington), disempower President Obama for the remainder of his term, bypass democratic institutions and rules, and, above all, impose its deeply reactionary political agenda on the country – not to mention position itself to gain control of Congress in 2014 and the presidency in 2016.
I just read a thoughtful article by Chauncey Robinson in the PW, posted below. I would only add that when comparing this generation and the zeitgeist of that time with the generation of the sixties and the zeitgeist of that time, it is important to keep in mind the differences in the material conditions in which each generation grew up. I remember a friend in Detroit, for example, telling me a few years ago that he could get fired from one auto plant and go down the street and get hired in another at union wages and a full package of benefits on the same day. Not like that today! And to mention another example, the right wing then was a pale imitation of its current self. Its presidential candidate – Barry Goldwater – had been taken to the woodshed by Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 elections. Without acknowledging such major differences, such conversations may generate heat, but no light. I would further add as a cautionary note that the term generation is a broad generalization that can easily conceal as much as it reveals. Many of the most prominent personalities of the extreme right today – Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, etc. – came of age in the radical, counter cultural sixties.
This is part two of a three-part series. See part one here.
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” – Karl Marx
“What childish innocence it is to present one’s own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument!” – Frederick Engels
If any of us wants to judge the conduct of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Syriza in their negotiations with the Eurogroup (the finance ministers and heads of state that make up the Eurozone) in July, a close look at the concrete situation in Greece and Europe is necessary. At the core of any analysis is an examination of the distribution of power among contending class and social forces, the larger socio-economic matrix in which these forces collide, and the parameters and limits of social change.
That may seem obvious and not require mentioning, but I’m afraid it’s a method some on the left seem averse to and thus avoid.
Click to read more: http://peoplesworld.org/
This is part one of a three-part series. Originally written for People’s World – check out the original article here.
The current crisis in Greece and the Eurozone is fluid and far from settled. The latest clash last month between Greece and its elite adversaries in Europe – Germany in the first place – is provoking a wide-ranging debate. I can’t claim to be an expert so what follows is offered in a provisional spirit.