In Janet Youngblood’s book, Learning Democratic Practices: Political Parties, Media and American Political Development, Youngblood goes beyond the traditional third party analysis of the Democratic and Republican Parties of both being corporate parties because they are funded by the same corporate masters. Youngblood redefines the Republican and Democratic Parties as corporations themselves, whose sole function is to provide political leadership to serve the other corporations that run our society. Undertaking that analysis, it is clear that Dennis Kucinich is nothing more than a sweet-talking manager at a War-Mart store whose loyalty at the end of the day is to his employer.
Kucinich may espouse progressive values, just as a War-mart manager may sing the praises of small town America, but when the day has ended they both have killed the thing they claim to support. Kucinich spent a good part of the 2004 election season not seeking votes from Democrats, but seeking to undermine America’s Peace Party, the Green Party. Kucinich created videos imploring Greens to switch to Democrat, though he knew their numbers would make no difference overall in winning the nomination. Kucinich spent a great deal of time campaigning in districts held by Green elected officials even though the delegate payoff was small. Kucinich had his volunteers calling Green households imploring them to switch enrollment to a War Party, the Democratic Party.
And these actions were not for any greater good at the end of the day. Here is how Ralph Nader summarized Kucinich’s actions at the 2004 Democratic Convention: “Again, it’s what Greg Kafoury said in the movie “An Unreasonable Man,” you don’t go past February, if you do the primaries. Besides, the kind of compromises that they force people to make, including Dennis Kucinich, say, they forced him to make, totally intolerable to anyone who believes in freedom of the mind. They told Dennis to shut up, put his hand up in favor of Kerry, and they wouldn’t give him a comma change on the Democratic platform. He wanted certain things that were any old Democratic Party would have accepted when they were developing the Democratic platform in 2004. And they gave him nothing. He was a loyal Democrat; went through all the rules in the primaries. They gave him nothing. Not even an antipoverty platform.”
And forget about any mention of peace in the platform or on the convention floor. Kucinich rolled over on the one issue he was supposed to stand for. No peace in the platform. A delegate couldn’t even wear a peace symbol on the 2004 Democratic Convention floor, or they would be dragged away.
I don’t see any other purpose for Kucinich other than to keep whispering sweet nothings to progressives so that they keep shopping at the War-mart, and to keep them from supporting a Peace Party. Progressives are supposed to keep believing that if by some miracle Kucinich is made head of War-mart, he will re-make it into Peace-mart. His performance at the 2004 Democratic Convention shows he doesn’t have the backbone to make the change, even if the long-shot paid off. When the pressure was on at the convention he caved and toed the War-mart line. Why would anyone expect him to cave any less than Gore as a Presidential nominee?
He's the only one taking a stand in the Democratic candidates against the war and has been criticising Pelosi and the other Dem leaders for not ending the war (Rob Kall posted a great interview with him a few weeks ago concerning that).
Nader's partially to blame for the current mess we're in... I wouldn't have described any votes taken from Nader as being from 'progressives'. But, labels aren't everything...
Is there a better candidate than Kucinich?
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 2:23:42 PM
Kucinich talks anti-war, but walks with the warmongers.
Look, a lot of my progressive friends backed Kucinich in 2004. I had no interest in rubbing salr in their wounds, but he is gearing up to waste their time again. I have a responsibility to speak about to keep them from being fooled twice.
Kucinich walked into the 2004 Democratic Convention with delegates and the cachet of a Presidential Candidate. John Kerry walked in promising at least 4 more years in Iraq. We Kucinich had the opportunity to confront Kerry's pro-war stance at the 2004 Convention, Kucinich rolled over and backed for Kerry and the pro-war platform instead.
by
2kiwipress (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 3:42:42 PM
and it's a noble thing you're trying to do -I suppose , but who, would you suggest, they back instead? I'm certain that it wouldn't be any of the rest of the Dems or would it? Maybe Richardson? He's my second choice.
If it's a party's stance that decides who you'll vote for, then that seems to eliminate Ron Paul as well, doesn't it (I know you never said you supported him)? BTW, why didn't Ron Paul remain an Independent? It frustrates me that Kucinich is still in the Democratic party -although he's been bucking the system a bit, so to speak...
These days it may be safer to actually BE an Independent or Third Party candidate!!!
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 5:17:32 PM
The point of this article was not to give my answer to the presidential race, but to keep my fellow progressives from wasting time better spent on other activist activities.
That said, I will give you the answer for me.
Look, if Kucinich had had the guts to call them out at the 2004 convention I would feel differently or if Gore had stayed the guy who wrote Earth in the Balance I might have been convinced to stay in the Democratic Party. But it has become clear that the problem is not personal but systemic. they both are employed by a corporation. And in order to stay within that corporation, they have to cave in to its corporate needs.
Gore supporting NAFTA was last straw for me personally, after I spent 10 years as a Democratic Party activist. As you suggest I went independent for a number of years.
Again as you suggest I was lured into third party politics because I found a party that stood for what I believe in: Nonviolence, Grassroots Democracy, Social & Economic Justic, and Ecology. Those are the four pillars of the Green Party. They are internationally agreed upon as the basic values of the party. So the Green Party is my answer.
The Green Party has a host of good candidates coming up. Including possibly a re-invigorated Nader or former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. As I saw Michael Moore explain at a Nader rally in Madison Square Garden in 2000, the great social changes in our society have been the result of pressure applied by third parties to those in power. The Suffragette Party, the Abolitionist Party, the Farmers party, the Socialist Party have all forced a major change in policy. I see the Green Party as a tool from the same dye.
Since you keep asking about Ron Paul. I do not support him becuase I have some very fundamental disagreements with Libertarian philosophy. Let's see if he holds to his values through the Republican convention, or folds like Kucinich.
by
2kiwipress (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 7:37:49 PM
in a viable third party option. So many have become disenfranchised with the two party system that it seems inevitable that another option should evolve... one problem though would be the underlying motivation of a politician switching alignments or declaring themselves Independent (such as Lieberman, who seemed to drop out of the Democratic party because he didn't like the rules when they worked against him -giving him the appearance of being an uninvited guest insisting on showing up at a party he knew he was NOT invited to... and ensuring a loss for his Democratic rival who'd clearly beaten him in the run up to the election). However, if voters can change their political ideologies or even switch from parties that do not represent them, I see no reason why politicians/candidates shouldn't be able to do the same -but I'd be cautious, myself, of believing many of these career politicians who might see it as a tactic through which to fool some of us into giving them our vote. Here in Georgia, Cynthia McKinney accomplished relatively little as a congresswoman and, though I liked her criticism of Bush and Co., she showed her true colors when faced with opposition anytime by playing the race card and even blaming Jews at one point for the loss of her seat... Seldom did I hear her expouse 'Green' ideals, unless it was an attempt to garner some votes... But, hey, people change. A third party can effect the election -that's how we got Bush in the first place...
Cheers,
Bid
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 9:47:37 AM
Do we with vote with our hearts, our minds, or our self-interests? And, I suppose this needs to be thrown into the mix as well: what is the outcome we desire to produce? A sense of moral integrity is fine -however, what if our votes only enable a greater evil to come about when the 'powerful' opposition (one that would at least provide some progress toward our means) falls short of the challenge because our votes went elsewhere -regardless of how 'correct' we thought we were? I honestly don't know how to answer these questions myself and I'll probably try to pose it as a diary sometime soon to see what kind of input people are willing to give...
Sorry to have dragged you so far off target there... you just got me thinking.
-Bid
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 732 comments)
on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 10:42:53 AM
Dennis Kucinich should sue you for libel and defamation of character.
Kucinich didn't sell out anyone. It was the peace movement that sold out Dennis Kucinich by not voting for him and instead voting for John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean. The peace movement chose the most "electable" candidate cause their mantra was "anyone but Bush." Kucinich won very few delegates so he was in no position to influence the party. Lets hope the peace movement has learned its lesson and chooses the only progressive Democrat in the election Dennis Kucinich instead of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Don't blame Kucinich for people leaving the Green Party for the Democratic Party. If you were stupid enough to join the Democratic Party then thats your own fault not Kucinich's fault. You can join the Green Party and still vote for Kucinich. When you go to vote you're supposed to vote for the best candidate, not vote along party lines.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments)
on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 5:50:04 PM
9 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
