"Life is hard when you don’t know who you are. It’s harder when you don’t know *what* you are. ...
I was lost for years. Searching while hiding. ...
I won’t hide anymore. I will live the life I choose."
-- Bo Dennis, "Lost Girl"
Memberships in Progressive Fire on G+ & FB, & Memberships in My YT Discord
2019-02-13
In the heady days of the election of 2016, the Google Plus community which was originally "Bernie Sanders for President 2016" and then "Berners for Jill Stein," which became "Progressive Fire" after the general election, had some 2400 members. We were the largest pro-Bernie community on Google Plus, and then the largest pro-Jill community on Google Plus (larger even than the community which is "Green Party of the United States Official"). Some decrease in membership during the "off season" was expected, and at one point in 2018 we got down to 1640 members. As of today, 13 February 2019, the number of members has picked back up a bit, but we have known since October of last year that the consumer version of G+ is being phased out. In consequence, I set up a Facebook group for "Progressive Fire," and knowing that many were not keen on Facebook or the censorship and invasion of privacy there, I also opened up my own Discord server (where there are no ads, no fees other than for purely optional perks, no invasion of privacy, and very little censorship apart from what each server owner sets in his or her rules and guidelines) for my YouTube subscribers to members of the PF community on G+. This offer/invitation was made back in October or November.
Now let's look at the membership numbers. Each of the following screenshots was made just a few moments ago today.
In case you can't make that out, let's focus and circle:
That says 1,704 members.
1,704 members in a community on a platform which will be gone before the end of April.
Let's have a look at PF on FB:
Again, maybe you don't know where to look, so let's focus again:
That says 31 Members.
31 members.
Now let's have a look at the Discord server I own which I set up for my YouTube subscribers, where I post everything I post at either/both of those PF platforms (and where I also post quite a bit more than I post on either of the PF platforms):
I would hope that this is large enough and focused enough that I don't need to make it any larger, but just in case, ...
That says 68 Members.
Most of the members of both PF at FB and my YT subscriber Discord server did not come from PF on G+. I am extremely annoyed with the fact that few of you have joined either PF on FB or my Discord. I'd much rather have you in my Discord (and I suspect most of you would prefer it to FB; we didn't use G+ because we loved FB, after all).
I know many of you are advocating some platform called "MeWe" (of which I never heard before the announcement from Alphabet, Inc. that they would be phasing out the consumer version of G+), and others are dispersing to assorted other platforms. I fully understand the dislike many of you have for Facebook. Discord can do everything which can be done on G+, Facebook, Twitter, and Skype, and more. If you all had come to Discord when I first invited you, you would have been able to opt out of a change to their Terms of Service pertaining to arbitration/lawsuit, but some of you weren't listening when I said "Yes, it was started by gamers for gamers, but it has grown well beyond that now." Some of you weren't listening when I stated, in response to concerns about "some new thing" (as if "MeWe" is some sort of legacy social media platform!), that Discord has been around for over 3 years (almost four now).
You want to disperse to the four winds instead of sticking together where we're more effective?
You want to go to a platform with a puerile name like "MeWe"?
You don't like the fact that I prohibited the divisive and unproductive discussions of "Gun Control vs the 2nd Amendment" and "Religion vs Atheism" in PF on G+? Guess what? Those prohibitions stand in PF on FB, but they don't exist in my Discord. You will be expected to argue in good faith and follow the laws of Logic (and not spew a bunch of sophist bullshit), but as long as you do so and follow the other guidelines and rules (I believe there is only one rule I have set, which is a prohibition on hate speech), go for it. If the SuperMod, one of the Mods, or I tell you to cool your heels for a bit, though, you should respect that instruction and govern yourselves accordingly.
So you have a choice. Go disperse and become less effective through dispersal, go to a platform with a name a child could improve, come to FB and put up with Zuckerberg's ineptitude and capitulation to the Atlantic Council, or come to Discord.
Once you've set up an account and downloaded the client and/or app, here's a permanent invitation to my Discord server: Liv's Livestreams & Vids
You'll get an "NSFW" message upon entry; that's merely a safety feature I installed.
You'll need to tell me who the fuck you are if you want into the actual server beyond the lobby. The lobby is only for vetting newcomers. You'll be able to see the rules and guidelines channel from there, too. There are a lot of trolls and dipshits roaming around Discord, so I vet newcomers pretty severely, which is why you need to tell me who the fuck you are if you actually want in.
Thanks for your attention to this. Have a nice day.
~ Giovanna,
Owner of Progressive Fire,
Editor of The Progressive Flame,
PMO Member of Real Progressives,
Philosopher,
YouTuber,
Blogger,
etc.
For the past two and a half years, the term "Progressive" has been rather frequently used in American political discourse. But what is a Progressive, exactly? This is a very good question, because three very distinct groups currently apply the label to themselves in the United Stats, and an historical use also exists. What is this historical usage, what are the three groups currently claiming the title, and how do these three groups differ from one another?
Beginning in the 1890s and continuing until at least 1917 (some historians argue that it extended to 1920 or even into the 1920s), the "Progressive Era" in the United States can best be characterized as a period of often populist efforts to promote Reform. This reform was attempted in response to political corruption going back to at least the Boss Tweed leadership of Tammany Hall, as well as issues arising from industrialization and urbanization. What "reform" meant to any given person was a rather subjective matter, just as it remains today.
As a result of this subjectivity, members of various political parties applied the label "Progressive" to themselves, or had it applied to them by others. The People's Party (also known as the Populist Party) was established in 1891, and was perhaps the first organized manifestation of the Progressive movement, which would therefore trace its roots to the Populist movement; the two movements did share at least one ideal, that of a more direct democratic system than was then in operation. By 1896, most of the members of the People's Party had merged with the Democratic Party, although a few held out till 1908. Some Democrats and Republicans likewise embraced the Progressive movement and name, and in 1912, a former Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, formed the Progressive Party (sometimes called "the Bull Moose Party"). By 1918, most members of this party had joined (or returned to) the Republican Party, with some joining the Democratic Party, and the Progressive Bull Moose Party was no more. Woodrow Wilson had co-opted much of the platform of the Progressive Party for his 1916 re-election bid, and this, coupled with his slogan "He kept us out of war," won him the election. He never attempted to implement any of the platform he had stolen from the Progressives.
In addition to varying party affiliations, various ideological perspectives with their several agendas were associated, whether by self-identification or the view of outsiders, with the Progressive movement. Social attitudes which might today be called "Liberal," "Moderate," and "Conservative" were all associated with the label "Progressive." Some advocated for an end to tariffs and excise taxes in favor of a tax on corporate income; others wanted to see this also extended to personal income. Some sought to have the gold standard on which the currency was based replaced by a silver standard, and to see the banks more regulated. Still others wanted the right to vote to be extended to women. Some pushed for prohibition of alcohol. Some called for modernization through technology and science. Some advocated for greater labor union activity. Foundations with charitable goals were established. Improved transportation and education were effected to benefit rural America. The "Muckrakers" were investigative journalists and novelists who exposed corruption, scandals, and waste in both government and the corporate world, leading to calls for various reforms in both sectors. Some even regarded Jim Crow laws and eugenics as somehow "Progressive," while African-Americans set about working on their own Progressive reforms involving better education, legal activism to secure equal rights, and assorted other things. Various other reforms were also encouraged.
In 1921, many Progressive goals had been achieved, and the Progressive movement began to fade. Some regard the modernization and mechanization of industry in the '20s to be Progressive, but at any rate, the wider reform movement had settled down, and the first stirrings of an economic laissez-faire attitude had begun. Policies and laws based on the economic aspects of what we now call "Classical Liberalism" were taken to unsustainable extremes, with trickle-down economics deregulation of various industries, anti-labor efforts, a "hard money" approach to currency (leading to less currency in circulation and thus increasing unemployment), risky lending by banks (which encouraged bubble economies), rampant speculation in the stock market, and so on, promoted by the very pro-business Republicans including presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover (who infamously preached "Rugged Individualism" as an anti-solidarity message). These laws and policies favoring big business and banking, and seeking to restrict the efficacy of collective bargaining and the power of labor unions, were among the main factors which resulted in the Great Depression. In 1924, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr. had established a new Progressive Party, which continued until 1934. His 1924 run for President was endorsed by the American Federation of Labor (AFL, which later merged with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or CIO, to form the AFL-CIO) and the Socialist Party of America.
With the stock market crash and the dawn of the Great Depression in 1929, attention was shifted to economic concerns, as should be expected. President Hoover's efforts had failed to address the situation to anyone's satisfaction. Progressive Republican Senators from western states urged him to take steps which might have had some effect, but his pro-business views led to him dismissing their calls and moving further to the economic Right. In 1932, another Roosevelt was elected President, and among his supporters were the same Progressive Republican Senators who had been ignored by Hoover, while other, Conservative, Progressive Republicans opposed his platform. In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as the 32nd President of the United States. He set about implementing "the New Deal" and espoused what could be regarded as Progressive social attitudes. His Vice President, John N. Garner, a Southern Conservative Democrat, opposed many of FDR's policies, and broke completely from the President in 1937. When FDR won re-election in 1940, he named his Henry A. Wallace as his new Vice President. Wallace had been a Progressive Republican, and didn't join the Democratic Party until 1936, having been appointed Secretary of Agriculture by FDR in 1933 and having supported he New Deal from its beginning. The Democratic National Convention in 1944 refused him the nomination for Vice President and instead nominated Harry D. Truman. FDR then named Wallace as Secretary of Commerce, in which position he continued under Truman's presidency until September of 1946. Henry Wallace then became the editor of The New Republic, and in 1948, formed yet another Progressive Party, running for President as the nominee thereof.
It was sometime between 1946 and 1948 that what I call the "Modern Progressive" movement became a distinct perspective in American politics, and Henry Wallace and his Progressive Party of 1948 were part of this movement. His platform included national health insurance, welfare expansion, desegregation, nationalization of energy, an end to the Truman Doctrine and the Cold War, and conciliation with the Soviet Union. The Communist Party USA endorsed Wallace for President, and he refused to disavow their endorsement. In 1952, however, Wallace began to oppose Communism, and specifically what was being done in its name in the USSR, having learned of what life was like inside the Soviet Union from Gulag survivor Vladimir Petrov.
Top Row (L-R): Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Wallace.
Wallace also supported the re-election of Republican President Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower in 1956. The Republican Party platform of 1956 was surprisingly Progressive, even by today's standards, and certainly more Progressive than the Democratic Party platform of 2016 (in spite of claims that the 2016 Democratic platform was "the most Progressive platform ever in the history of the Democratic Party," which, even if that claim were true, would be a sad indictment of how far the Democrats have strayed from the platform of FDR).
For "Modern Progressives," the meaning of "Progressive" is largely intended to refer to an attitude toward change in society (and requires support for reform and progress). The Social Liberals also arose around the same time as the Modern Progressives, and are now generally called simply "Liberals," while the Liberals of the past became known as "Classical Liberals." Liberal, like Progressive, Moderate, Radical, Conservative, Ultraconservative, and Reactionary, are terms properly reserved for attitudes toward social and/or cultural change. However, "Progressive" has also come to imply some economic views as well, Modern Progressives typically falling somewhere Left of Center on he economic scale, embracing either Let Social Democracy (Social Democracy is Centrist, with some forms falling a little to the Right of Center, and some a little to the Left) or some form of Socialism, while rejecting the extreme Leftism of Marxist Socialism. During the Vietnam War, Modern Progressives opposed the war, while Social Liberals supported it, most of them being Democrats by the time and the war prosecuted by Democratic Presidents JFK and LBJ (as well as later by the Republican President Richard M. Nixon). Progressive grassroots activists helped secure the Democratic nomination for President in 1972 for George McGovern, who was, among other things, an anti-war and pro-ecology candidate.
Following McGovern's defeat by Nixon in the '72 election (a defeat assisted by some establishment Democrats), the Democratic Party in 1973 revised their charter and bylaws to prevent another grassroots Progressive nomination, to avoid any grassroots reform of the party, and to stack the deck against any grassroots takeover of the party, transforming the "Democratic" Party into a top-down organization an ensuring that those in power in the party would be likely to retain their party positions. The Democratic Party has not nominated a single Progressive for President since, although Progressives have continued to vie for the nomination, notable examples being Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008, and Bernie Sanders in 2016. Every attempt to reform the Democratic Party has failed, most such efforts having become co-opted by the party establishment.
Following consistent wins by Republicans throughout the 1980s, Democrats beginning in 1989 started moving toward "fiscally conservative" (economically Right Wing) views, influenced by Tony Coelho. This move to the Right would be cemented during the presidency of William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton in the '90s with the Democrats embracing Neoliberalism (an extreme Right Wing corporatist perspective which has been associated with the Fascist dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, and which takes its name from the economic aspects of Classical Liberalism taken to extremes under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and the Republicans began moving further to the Right themselves in an effort to stay to the Right of the Democrats on economic matters; many Democrats who had previously called themselves "Liberal" (that is, Social Liberal) also attempted to rebrand following the 1988 election (due to the Republicans having done their best to turn the label into a smear, and the Democrats having no spine to defend their designation), by co-opting the label "Progressive," but without changing their views on social change. As such, those Liberals who still (whether consistently or occasionally) claim to be Progressive are known by Modern Progressives as "Fauxgressives." During the presidency of Barack Obama, the Democrats would chase the Republicans by moving even further to the Right, resulting in the Republicans again moving further to the Right.
Also during the Obama presidency, a group which had previously perverted Political Correctness by embracing the worst aspects thereof, including a tendency to authoritarianism, intolerance of even the slightest dissent (and sometimes even of sincere questions), and self-righteous busybodyism, began to distort Kimberlé Crenshaw's original iteration of the concept of "Intersectionality" into a focus on Identity Politics, even as some of them were usurping the language of Social Justice advocates in an effort to spread their outrage and facilitate their promotion of a victim mentality. These would gradually coalesce, by 2012, into an apparently disorganized movement involving influences from Jacques Derrida's metaphysical Nominalism, Michel Foucault's pessimism and dislike of the idea of objective truth, sex-negative and androphobic fringe elements of Second Wave Feminism, and the social Liberalism of the Democratic Party, among other things. These Outrage Mongers inserted themselves into the Occupy movement and rendered it impotent by pushing Identity Politics to divide the movement into rival groups based on "Identity," whereas the Occupy movement was at its inception successful through an emphasis on Solidarity. Many of these Outrage Mongers also label themselves "Progressive," but due to their focus on divisive Identity Politics and their intolerance and authoritarianism, Modern Progressives have come to regard them as "Regressives."
Bernard "Bernie" Sanders brought the name "Progressive" back into the popular consciousness in his 2016 run for the Democratic Party nomination for President. With a long history of rejecting the partisan loyalty of the Democratic fauxgressives (he has been an Independent most of his career) and the divisive Identity Politics of the regressives (indeed, he even explicitly pointed out that Identity Politics is divisive), Senator Sanders established his credentials as a Modern Progressive. Unfortunately, for reasons which remain unclear, upon being denied the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, he endorsed Hillary Clinton, who is in no way Progressive.
Meanwhile, even as Democrats were telling Progressives that they didn't need us, David Cobb of Green Party candidate for President Jill Stein's campaign, issued an invitation to Progressives to come "help build and own the Green Party," and several new "Progressive" parties were formed, including "the Progressive Party," "the New Progressive Party," "the Progressive Independent Party," "the Progressive Bull Moose Party," and others. Some of these have been influenced by regressives, while others may hold true to the Modern Progressive current. How many of them will last until the next presidential election in 2020 remains to be seen, but the Green Party of the United States remains the Progressive Leftist party in the US with the largest membership and the longest history, as well as an established infrastructure and apparatus, members in public office, and experience getting on the ballot in spite of the numerous hurdles set by the two major parties -- and our numbers are growing. Join us, and help realize the ideals of Modern Progressives which were born in the 1890s and entered adolescence in 1948, attaining adulthood in 2016, and slowly waking up to the pernicious deception of the "two" party system in the two years which have passed since then. See the lies of the fauxgressives for what they are, eschew the intolerance and authoritarianism of the regressives, and reject the bifurcation fallacy of the "two" party system. Join us and help reform the Democratic Federal Republic, and save our Earth from the depredations of those whose greed cannot be satisfied.
"People who are too optimistic seem annoying. This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of what an optimist really is.
"An optimist is neither naive, nor blind to the facts, nor in denial of grim reality. An optimist believes in the optimal usage of all options available, no matter how limited. As such, an optimist always sees the big picture. How else to keep track of all that’s out there? An optimist is simply a proactive realist.
"An idealist focuses only on the best aspects of all things (sometimes in detriment to reality); an optimist strives to find an effective solution. A pessimist sees limited or no choices in dark times; an optimist makes choices.
"When bobbing for apples, an idealist endlessly reaches for the best apple, a pessimist settles for the first one within reach, while an optimist drains the barrel, fishes out all the apples and makes pie.
"Annoying? Yes. But, oh-so tasty!"
~ Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration (italics in original)
The Past
We could have had President Bernard Sanders, a Progressive Leftist in the White House. Had Bernie been the nominee of the Democratic Party, he would have inspired people to get out and vote, and the Republicans would not now be dominant in both Houses of Congress. Some establishment Democrats have mocked this claim, insisting that if Bernie could not even defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary, he could not possibly have defeated Trump in the general election. Leaving aside for the moment the reality of the voter suppression and assorted other shenanigans engaged in by the Democratic establishment, the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie, these establishment Democrats are either stupid or attempting to bamboozle the voters, for Bernie Sanders had immense support among "No Party Preference," independent, and "third" party voters, many of whom could not vote in the primaries, due to partisan "closed primaries." Their numbers are greater than the number of voters registered as Republican or the number of voters registered as Democrat. Their votes could, nay, would, have easily put Bernie in the White House.
Instead, we were subjected to the worst Democratic nominee for President in my memory. On top of her abysmal record and stances, to say nothing of the vast number of scandals associated with her, Hillary's campaign and her supporters attempted to guilt trip Berners into voting for her, tried to scare Berners into voting for her, endeavored to insult Berners into voting for her, sought to intimidate Berners into voting for her, exhibited massive condescension in the hope that Berners would vote for her. They called us sexists, chauvinists, and misogynists. They called us naïve. They called us ridiculous. They said we did not understand politics. Hillary's campaign hired online trolls to harass Berners during the primary campaign and third party supporters during the lead-up to the general election. Why they thought that these would be effective tactics remains a mystery.
Many of us stayed home, didn't vote for any presidential candidate, or voted for Doctor Jill Ellen Stein, the nominee of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS). A few even voted for Donald John Trump, the Republican nominee or Gary Earl Johnson, the "Libertarian" nominee. I myself voted for Doctor Stein.
Donald Trump won the election.
The blame game started immediately, with establishment Democrats and their partisan followers, and the drones of Hillary, pointing their fingers at Bernie, at Berners, at Jill, at GPUS voters, at Johnson and those who voted for him, at Russia, at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and even at Director James Comey of the FBI. Some blamed racism, some blamed sexism. One moronic spoiled brat blamed white women and said that they were guilty of internalized misogyny. I have not seen or heard a single one of them express any acceptance of responsibility on their own part. Most have not seemed to believe any of the information revealed by WikiLeaks, including the collusion of the Democratic National Committee with the Hillary for President campaign and the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie. They have continued to believe their own rhetoric to the point that one cultist even had the hubris to compare Hillary to the Goddess Athena. I have seen videos of many of Hillary's supporters crying and expressing dismay and fear. That was, of course, when they were not rioting in the streets, although there has been some suggestion that many of the rioters were bused in by George Soros and/or MoveOn.org, to which Soros is a major contributor, and are therefore examples of "astroturfing." Whether such suggestion be true or no, I do not know. I have seen video of many buses parked on both sides of a street, but no verification of when and where the video was made, nor any evidence of connection to the rioters or any individual or organization.
Some have so bought into the Argumentum ad Hominem which the Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and the Hillary for President campaign used throughout the election cycle that they sincerely believe that Trump is a Fascist. If he be a Fascist, then so is Hillary, and demonstrably so, but these people have been unwilling to listen to any criticism of Hillary. Instead, they have simply continued the name-calling which they embraced during the campaign. They have refused to listen to the historical evidence that Trump is no more of a Fascist than any other Republican President since 1981, and they have refused to consider that their "Saint" Hillary is not a Leftist, not a Progressive, not even a Liberal. No, they have insisted, Hillary is flawless and has never done anything remotely wrong. The cult of personality surrounding Hillary has prevented any penetration of their delusion by logic.
Doctor Stein, whom I supported and for whom (as noted above) I voted, who was the only Progressive Leftist candidate for President who was on sufficient state ballots to have a chance to win the general election, received only 1% of the popular vote (as of the time of this writing, according to RealClearPolitics).
The Present
So here we are, a week and two days after the election. The Liberals and pseudo-Liberals have continued to behave hysterically. Some partisan Democrats, members of the Democratic establishment, and Hillary supporters have called for the Electoral College to ignore the way their states voted and instead install Hillary as the President. The level of political immaturity necessary for such a petition is rather stunning. The hypocrisy is even more stunning, in light of the use of "Super Delegates" by the Democratic Party, whose pledged votes were constantly reported during the primary campaign season (even though those votes would not be cast until the Democratic National Convention), in a bid by the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie.
Hillary supporters, the rank and file supporters, are angry, sad, afraid. They seem to honestly believe that Trump's presidency will be a disaster. I have no doubt that it will not be remotely like what I would prefer, but I also recognize rhetoric and propaganda for what they are. We survived eight years of George Walker Bush and Richard "Dick" Bruce (Darth) Cheney. We will survive four years of Trump and Pence, and so will the democratic federal republic which is the United States of America.
In a little more than a month, the Electoral College will vote to confirm Trump as President-elect. To do otherwise would be to invite chaos on a level which would far surpass the recent rioting by Hillary supporters. Trump's supporters have firearms and assorted other ways to make the pro-Hillary/anti-Trump protests look like nothing more than a high school dance.
Some Berners who went Green for the general election have been considering returning to the Democratic Party, while others have expressed their intention to remain affiliated with the GPUS, and a few have spoken of leaving the country.
The Democrats, for their part, have named Charles "Chuck" Ellis Schumer as their Senate Minority Leader, seem to favor Howard Brush Dean III for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (although both Bernie and Schumer have supported Keith Maurice Ellison, who is widely believed to be Progressive, but supports the "No Fly Zone" over Syria which was favored by Mrs Clinton and opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and which would inevitably lead to provocation of, and likely war with, Russia, which is something no sane person wants), and have floated the idea of Timothy "Tim" Michael Kaine being their preferred candidate for President in 2020. Schumer is a Neoliberal, Dean would be a continuation of the same failed policies which characterized the position when Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile held it, and Kaine is a man who loves deregulation and describes himself as "conservative." If that were not bad enough, Schumer also named Joseph "Joe" Manchin III to be "Vice Chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee." Manchin has been described as "moderate to conservative," and his record is anything but Progressive. Schumer also named Elizabeth Ann Warren as Co Vice Chair of the Conference. Warren was widely regarded as a Progressive champion before she endorsed Hillary Clinton for President earlier this year, apparently lured by the notion that Hillary would name her as running mate, which did not happen. Further research into Warren's history reveals that she voted Republican until 1995, at age 46. The other Vice Chair of the Conference named by Schumer is Mark Robert Warner, who is said to be a "moderate" Democrat, who voted for the extension of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in 2011, was a member of the "Gang of Six," has been hesitant regarding minimum wage increase, and whose campaign contributors include JP Morgan Chase. None of these things support any idea that the Democrats have learned anything from this election cycle. Schumer did name Bernie Sanders to be "Chair of Outreach," which is, according to The Washington Post, "a junior role in his [Schumer's] expanded leadership team." As Chair of Outreach, Bernie will be in charge of public relations for the Democrats. Schumer's choice of Senator Sanders for this position is itself an attempt at public relations, but a junior leadership role is less than Bernie deserves, and I am concerned with what sort of "outreach" the Democrats will expect him to do.
We are still on this side of Paradise, and perhaps further from that ideal than we have been before, although that is a matter of debate.
The Future
Where do we go from here, then? What is the way forward? For Progressive Left-libertarians, several options have been being discussed. Some believe that we should join with or go back into the Democratic Party and attempt to reform it and steer it toward Progressive Left-libertarian ideals. Others have argued instead that we should start a wholly new political party. A few have suggested that we should go into one of the smaller Progressive Leftist political parties, and a few others have spoken of a desire to leave the USA and move to Canada or Europe. Still others have proposed that we establish a coalition of Progressive Leftist political parties to work together. And yet others have argued that we should remain with the GPUS.
From my perspective as one who recognized, in early 1994, the trend which has come to dominate the Democratic Party since 1993, and based on the just past election cycle and the post-election behavior of the establishment Democrats, I cannot see any value in going into the Democratic Party, nor any hope of it ever being reformed. Although even the International Monetary Fund has declared that Neoliberalism is a failure, the Democratic Party establishment seems to be intent on continuing to push policies based on that dystopian economic philosophy. Indeed, the establishment Democrats are now more like the Republicans of the 1980s than the Democrats of that decade. Some of them have even embraced Neoconservative foreign policy (interventionism/imperialism) and unconditional support of the nation of Israel, which were prominent among Republicans in the 1980s. They have learned nothing from the failed Clinton-Kaine campaign, and they therefore see no need to reform. They remain in control of the party and its apparatus, which would make any effort to reform the party a steep uphill battle.
I do not agree with the idea of starting an entirely new political party, either. That would take, at minimum, 20 years to grow to a point at which it might be able to put forth candidates for US Senate, US House of Representatives, and US President who might have a chance of winning office. The amount of time, effort, and money necessary to accomplish such a thing would be enormous, and having to wait that long would be a setback which none of us actually wants.
While there are a number of small Progressive Leftist political parties in the USA, none of them has the membership numbers or sufficient organization to be a contender without time, effort, and money comparable to what would be required to build a totally new political party. Again, such a setback would be extremely undesirable.
Leaving the country would accomplish nothing; the USA would likely continue down the path to dystopia, and eventually become a menace to any nation to which we might emigrate.
Working to build a coalition of Progressive Left-libertarian political parties sounds good, but partisan politics is as much a quagmire as religious sectarianism. Each group believes its way is "the" way, or they would have already merged together. Still, this has promise, if we could successfully overcome the sectarian separatism of the distinct parties. In order to accomplish this, however, we would need to have a strong presence in at least one such party.
I believe that our best option is to remain with the Green Party of the United States, and work to build it up, to get the message of the GPUS out, to inform the citizens of the actual numbers of the independent/NPP/"third" party voters, to register the unregistered eligible voters, to educate and promote the GPUS platform. The GPUS presidential candidate in this past election was on the ballot in 44 states and the District of Columbia, and eligible as a write-in in three more states, for a total of 48, which is more than enough electoral votes to have won, had Jill won in enough states to get those electoral votes. While she only got 1% of the popular vote this time around, that is a significant improvement on the 0.36% which she received in the 2012 election. If we start NOW, instead of waiting till 2019, we can increase that percentage even more. The Greens are found in several nations, and so have international recognition. The GPUS has organization and apparatus which we would not have to build from scratch. They are the largest Progressive Leftist party in the United States. They have name recognition. Many Berners went into the GPUS after the Democratic National Convention this year. Progressive Left-libertarians thus have a decent presence in the party already. We can ensure that the GPUS continues to stand for our ideals and selects candidates whom we prefer.
You may say I'm a dreamer of an impossible dream, but I'm not the only one. Someday we'll find the end of the rainbow, the lovers, the dreamers, and me, all of us under its spell.
Even if the Democratic Party were receptive to being reformed and to Progressive Left-libertarian ideals, that would not resolve the challenges which we face. The entire electoral system must be reformed. The Democratic Party must dispense with "Super Delegates." We need to eradicate the "two" party system itself, which has brought us to the point at which two widely disliked and distrusted candidates were put forward as the two major parties' offerings for the office of President of the United States of America, and that will only be possible if we are in a "third" party. We must get rid of "First Past the Post" elections and replace them with "Ranked Choice Voting" and Proportional Representation. We need to take control of the debates away from the bipartisan Committee on Presidential Debates, and put it in the hands of an authentically non-partisan body. We must reform campaign finance and restore the Fairness Doctrine, making it stronger than it was before. We need to amend the Constitution to declare once and for all that corporations are not people, and to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Citizens United vs the Federal Election Commission. We cannot accomplish these things from within the Democratic Party, for the establishment of the party would never allow us to do so, and they have no intention of empowering the members of the party, for doing so would remove their power. They are elitists who believe that they know what is best for us, when they are not merely Machiavellians intent on getting and keeping power and wealth, or pimps for the corporatist oligarchy. #DemExit must be permanent for all those Berners who left the Democratic Party, for the establishment of that party has no intention of allowing the party to be reformed; they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Those Berners who took part in #DemExit must go Green and stay Green, if they hope to ever see the future which all of us who are Progressive Left-libertarians long for.
We are still on this side of Paradise. If we wish to draw nearer to that destination, the path toward it is clear, and that path is through the Green Party of the United States. It's in our hands.
The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 24; episode 24 overall; production code 25.
Fair use notice This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied. For more information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Remember what we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.
"Brothers and sisters, this is the nation we can create when we stand together, and not let people divide us. They have unlimited sums of money. They own much of this country. They control much of the media. They are very powerful. But we have something they do not have. We have a united people."
~ Senator Bernie Sanders, telling us what we are fighting against
The Hillary Clinton campaign is opening a new initiative to attempt to discourage us from supporting Dr. Jill Stein, as reported in this article in The New York Times yesterday. As before, with their "Correct the Record" effort (which most of us recognize as "Corrupt the Record"), this will be another legion of paid trolls offering harassment and illogical talking points, with what the Hillary campaign hopes will be a heavy dose of "Public Relations" rhetoric (propaganda), but which will more likely be the same sort of intellectually challenged thuggery as we saw last time, with pornography and outrageous conspiracy theories presented on sites and social networks which support Doctor Jill Stein. They will likely repeat the same old smears about Dr Stein which the Hillary campaign has tried in the past. They will be pushing the narrative of "the big bad Trump" heavily. They will be promoting the debunked bullshit about how Nader supposedly caused the election of Dubya. They will highlight the positive record of Hillary, while ignoring all the negatives, because the Hillary campaign believes we're all just poor, stupid, uninformed kids who don't know who she is. They will plead and beg and threaten and cajole and promise, but they are LIARS working for a LIAR.
Ralph Nader did not lose the election for Al Gore in 2000. Al Gore lost the election for Al Gore in 2000. He had the personality of a dead fish, he did not inspire, he did not make his case. Everything the Democrats said about 2000, then and now, hinged on the general election in Florida. They will tell you that 1% of Democrats in Florida voted for Ralph Nader, and that if that 1% had voted for Gore, Gore would have won. What the Democrats do not tell you is that 13% of Democrats in Florida voted for George W. Bush in 2000. Nader did not lose the election for Gore. Gore did not inspire Florida Democrats to vote for him. Gore lost the election all by himself. Ron Chusid, in the Liberal Values blog, took on the discredited bullshit about Nader in the post, "Debunking the Ralph Nader Scare Tactics For Supporting The Lesser Evil." Tony Schinella, in the Politizine blog, took on the actual numbers and showed the lie for what it is, in his post, "DEBUNKING THE MYTH: Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000." You can also read Jim Hightower's analysis of the nationwide election results at Salon, here. No, Ralph Nader is not to blame. Establishment Democrats have no-one to blame but themselves, but like their beloved Hillary blaming Russia for leaking emails which expose negatives in Hillary's past (as well as collusion between her campaign and the DNC), they cannot bring themselves to admit fault, and have tried to blame others for their own mistakes and wrongdoing.
Now, in 2016, vast swathes of the electorate are sick to death of the establishment and the two establishment parties. Record numbers of voters do not want Hillary Clinton OR Donald Trump to win. Those voting for Hillary are mostly voting against Trump, and those voting for Trump are mostly voting against Hillary. The exceptions, those who genuinely support the candidate, are the dyed-in-the-wool, unthinking partisan types, who vote party as a matter of course, without much analysis of the candidates or what they stand for, nor their records.
26% of Americans registered to vote are registered as Republicans.
17% of Americans registered to vote are registered as Democrats and support Hillary Clinton.
14% of Americans registered to vote supported Bernie Sanders during the primary election. Of those, more than half have switched their support to Jill Stein following the Democratic National Convention. 43% of Americans registered to vote are registered as independent, no party preference, or as a member of a third party.
We have the numbers. We just need to get the information about the Green Party platform and Dr Jill Stein's plan out, and we need to stand firm, reject the scare tactics and the Bifurcation fallacy.
But let's talk about that 2000 election again, or rather, the result thereof. George W. Bush became President. I need not remind you all of the disaster that was, but something which is not so well known is that much of what happened while "Dubya" was President was planned, over a year before the fact. If you're not familiar with the Project for the New American Century, you can read up on it at Wikipedia, at SourceWatch, and at Information Clearing House. Many PNAC personnel were given appointments in Dubya's cabinet. What you should really know, however, is that, in September of 2000, the PNAC published a paper called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" in which plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were laid out, almost a year before the events of 11 September 2001, the covert insertion of the CIA's Special Activities Division into Afghanistan on 26 September 2001 as a precursor to a larger invasion, and the passage of the "USA PATRIOT Act" on 26 October 2001. On 20 March 2003, based on what are now described as "intelligence failures," the US invaded Iraq. The results of all of these actions include the spread of "al-Qaeda" to other Islamic nations. You can read or download (and then read) "Rebuilding America's Defences" from this archive.
It doesn't end there. On 21 March 2011, with the full support (and urging) of then-Secretary Hillary Clinton, the US under Obama's leadership, and the UK under Cameron's leadership, together with other NATO forces, invaded Libya and killed Muammar Gaddafi. According to a UK parliamentary foreign-affairs committee report, the UK's involvement in this was based on “erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding” of the situation there, as reported in an article published by The Wall Street Journal. One of the results of this was the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. Among other results of this destabilization of Libya was the establishment of al-Qaeda in Libya and the rise of Daesh (which is more commonly known as "ISIS," "ISIL," "IS," or "the Islamic State," but "Daesh" is a much more accurate name for them, its meaning in Arabic being "a group of bigots who impose their will on others," as discussed by Alice Guthrie in this post).
In 2012, an article discussing the PNAC was published in Global Research, speculating that the next US invasion would be an invasion of Syria.
Established in February of 2007, the CNAS, or Center for a New American Security, includes several former members of the PNAC (which ceased function in 2006). The CNAS is closely associated with Hillary Clinton. In May of 2016, the CNAS published a paper called "Extending American Power," which you can read, or download (and then read), here. Among other things, this paper points fingers at Russia, engages in revisionist history concerning the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and demands régime change in Syria. Mrs Clinton has been rattling a saber at Russia for a while now, and has been pushing for a "no fly" zone over Syria, as well as the CNAS goal of régime change in Syria. The CNAS also strongly supports the TPP and the TPIP. You may draw your own conclusions from this information. I'm sure you've guessed that my conclusions, based on her Neoconservative tendencies to support Israel and promote wars for oil, is that she intends to invade Syria if she's elected President. This conclusion is also upheld by the revelation of a Clinton email (thanks to WikiLeaks), in which it is said that "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad." You can view the email here.
I could go on talking about Hillary's record, her numerous claims to have made "a mistake," or that she "misspoke," and her rampant twisting of the truth. The conclusion is either 1. she's telling the truth and is terribly incompetent, 2. she's lying, 3. the Transverse Sinus Thrombosis from which she suffers has caused brain damage and she honestly does not remember what she did or said, or 4. some combination of the first three conclusions. Regardless of which of those conclusions correct, she is not qualified for or worthy of the office of President of the United States of America.
She will lead the US into more of the "endless war" which began under George W. Bush. That much is a given, assuming she will live long enough to do so (but we'll come back to her health momentarily). Her perspective on imperialism/interventionism or non-interventionism is identical to that of any other Neoconservative.
On questions of Economics, she has demonstrated a firm commitment to continuing the Neoliberalism which her husband embraced, which has in fact characterized every US President since Ronald Reagan took office. She supports the TPP, in spite of her more recent rhetoric to which she was pushed by Bernie Sanders and Berners to whom she had intended to appeal. However, her selection of Tim Kaine as her Vice Presidential running mate indicates that she has only changed the tune, but not the substance, of her message. She will push the TPP if she be elected and take office. And that's not all. Her campaign contributions came from the "too big to fail" banking industry, Wall Street, the petroleum industry, the for-profit prison industry, and other representatives of the establishment corporatocracy. These contributions are well documented. She will not rein in Wall Street or high-risk lending or the oil companies. She will not impose regulations, but relax them. She exported fracking around the world and won't be doing anything to stop it if elected. She will not, in short, do a damned thing to combat global warming or economic injustice, but will instead continue the status quo of business as usual. In short, Hillary Clinton is a Republican, regardless of her running as a Democrat.
Now, about Mrs Clinton's health, a lot of her supporters have howled that all this concern is nothing but "right wing conspiracy theory." Yet, following the events of 11 September 2016, when she "passed out" or "fainted" leaving the 9/11 Memorial service in NYC, even the main stream media, which has heretofore been all in for Hillary, yes, even they began to ask questions (including no less a Hillary propaganda outlet than The Washington Post itself, which has previously fallen over itself to lick Mrs Clinton's boot). About the same time, more Clinton emails were leaked by the hacker "Guccifer 2.0," and included therein was this email, originally sent on 4 January 2013, from Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton, in which Ms Abedin quotes an article by Doctor Marc Siegel, discussing Hillary's condition, "Right Transverse Sinus Thrombosis," and urging that the media practice respect for Mrs Clinton's privacy and restraint in their reporting. Now, the source being a hacker, some of the Hillary supporters are likely to reject it as a forgery or some kind of conspiracy theory, but the fact is that it was a response to a piece done by ABC News on 31 December 2012, which CONFIRMED this diagnosis and which you can read (and watch an accompanying video for) here. Since that ABC News piece and the subsequent article by Dr Siegel, we've heard little or nothing from the main stream media about "Transverse Sinus Thrombosis," especially in connection with Hillary Clinton.
So what exactly is this condition, "Transverse Sinus Thrombosis"? Let's see what the American Heart Association has to say. In an article published on 12 July 2012 in one of their journals, the journal named Stroke, Volume 43, Number 7, we find some explanation. The article, titled "Differentiation of Transverse Sinus Thrombosis From Congenitally Atretic Cerebral Transverse Sinus With CT," explains as follows:
Thrombosis of the cerebral dural venous sinuses is an uncommon but potentially devastating cause of stroke, which has a predilection for women and the young.
Now you say, "Well, that's great, Giovanna, but what difference does that make? What does it mean? What are the symptoms and possible complications?"
I'm glad you asked. Johns Hopkins tells us the symptoms and possible complications, in this article:
Symptoms of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis may vary, depending on the location of the thrombus. Responding quickly to these symptoms makes it more possible to recover.
These are the physical symptoms that may occur:
Headache
Blurred vision
Fainting or loss of consciousness
Loss of control over movement in part of the body
Seizures
Coma
...
Complications of venous sinus thrombosis include:
Impaired speech
Difficulty moving parts of the body
Problems with vision
Headache
Increased fluid pressure inside the skull
Pressure on nerves
Brain injury
Developmental delay
Death
"Okay, okay," you say, "that does sound pretty bad, but the same article points out that she can live just fine under proper medical supervision." Yes, yes it does. Under proper medical supervision.
"Well, what difference does it make anyway!?" you demand. Indeed, what difference does it make? Well, let's consider what would happen if Mrs Clinton died in office. We all know the answer. Her Vice President would take over. Do you know much about Tim Kaine? An article published on 14 September 2016 in The Huffington Post suggests that we ought to be very concerned with Hillary's health, precisely because of who Tim Kaine is. The article, linked here, says, among other things:
...
As Kaine stated repeatedly in campaign ads when running for Governor – which used the catchphrase “these are my values and that’s what I believe” – “I’m conservative.” ...
He is a man who stood with George W. Bush on Iraq, professing to “share the President’s view,” and continued as a champion for neoconservative imperialism as a Senator. Kaine led the effort to get Congressional approval for the use of military force against ISIS, which to that point had been ongoing illegally, mocking opponents as “afraid.” He has advocated for the enactment of a “safe zone” in Syria which would “need US military assets to protect it,” – put another way, ‘ground troops’ – and in a time of ostensible non-proliferation supports strengthening America’s nuclear capability.
As a pro-coal Governor, and the Senator who co-sponsored legislation to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Kaine has been an environmental antagonist, often drawing criticism from activists and related organizations.
... For Tim Kaine, trade deals continuing the labor (not to mention sovereignty)-crushing legacy of NAFTA are “something I feel really passionate about.” As Governor he sent letters of support for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and others, voted to fast-track the TPP as a Senator, and was passionate enough to critique the “loser’s mentality” of those who opposed this agenda.
And while Donald Trump throws around “loser” as an insult from a man who told people they were fired on television, Tim Kaine does so as a politician who oversaw the execution of 11 people as Governor. ... Tim Kaine has definitively been a ‘tough on crime’ politician.
Well, certain types of crime, at least. As a Senator, Kaine has been a great crusader for bank deregulation. He voted for a bill which would roll back the already modest Dodd-Frank regulations, standing in opposition to colleagues such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and earlier this year, according to Politico, was “part of a lobbyist-driven effort to help banks dodge consumer protection standards and regulations to prevent banks from destroying our economy.”
...
Yeah, I would have to say her health is an important consideration. Unless, you know, you want to vote for someone who has absolutely no reservations about describing himself as a "conservative," a word much misused these days, when what it describes should be more accurately named "social reactionary" or "would-be theocrat" or "Far Right Wing Extremist."
"But, but, but ... TRUMP!!!" So fucking what? Did you not pay attention to those numbers up there? Hillary cannot win in a fair and honest election against Trump, and that is what really ought to scare you, instead of the Hillary campfire host's dark fairy tale of the big bad wolf (or the big orange blowhard). This is the same dark fairy tale the Democrats have been spinning for decades already, "Vote for our candidate or you'll get this horrible fascist evil, even though our candidate is not really that inspiring." It's the same shit every four years, the "Lesser Evil" narrative. The Argumentum ad Metum. Always always always, present the candidate of the Republicans as Hitler or Mussolini, in order to terrorize the people into voting for the Democratic candidate, and totally ignore any other possible choices. Didn't work so well in 2000, did it? Or 2004, for that matter. The only reasons Obama won in 2008 and 2012 were the historical precedent of electing our first Black President and the fact of his charisma. I hate to break it to ya, but Hillary ain't got no charisma. She's so obviously a fake that most people not only refuse to trust her, they actively dislike her.
"But, but, but, ... A WOMAN PRESIDENT!!!" Yeah, that would be nice, if it were the right woman. Hillary isn't the right woman.
"Oh, I see, so you're just a sexist and a misogynist!" No, toots, I'm a woman myself, and no, I don't have any "internalized misogyny." I just think Hillary Clinton is a tremendously shitty choice for President, and her uterus, her chromosomes, and her gender identity have nothing to do with it. But, you know, I am supporting a woman for President. So that "sexist and misogynist" line isn't remotely realistic, and you know it. You're just making yourselves look like bigoted idiots with that. It's past time to stop shrieking that line, which was tried back in 2008, too, and it didn't work then, either. It also cheapens the terms when you apply them to anyone who disagrees with you on any given issue, which is part of the reason so many people have in recent years rejected the label "Feminist," because the loudest voices in Feminism these days are the "safe space" snowflakes who accuse any dissenters of being "sexist" and "misogynistic" and "homophobic" and "transphobic" and "transmisogynistic." For the record, I'm Bisexual, and I used to be a Moderator in an LGBTI support group, till it was shut down by the host, who shut down all groups at their site at the same time, for reasons I have not been told. Bear false witness against someone else. I don't buy your Third Wave Authoritarianism which you think is "Feminism." I'm old enough to remember Second Wave Feminism, and when I listen to Feminists (and I do), the ones I listen to are Second Wave Feminists, not self-righteous and ill-informed busybodies like bell hooks and Anita Sarkeesian. I'm not a supporter of Emily's List. I vote for a person because of what they stand for, not because of their chromosomal sex or gender identity.
And so let me make it plain to you, that we are not merely fighting against both Trump and Hillary and the Establishment which they both represent, but we are fighting for something, too.
"The unique thing about the Green Party is that we are the one national party that is not corrupted by corporate money, by lobbyist money, or by super PACs, so we have the unique ability to actually stand up for what it is that the American people want, what everyday people want, that is, we have a jobs emergency, and we call for an emergency jobs program that will actually solve the emergency climate change that we are seeing in the floods and the fires and the heatwaves across this country that are so painful to watch right now. This is what the future looks like, if we don't stand up and start doing something about it. We're the one party that is actually calling for cancellation of student debt and bailing out a generation of young people ... make higher education free, and healthcare as a human right, and create a welcoming path to citizenship, end police violence, and a foreign policy that's based on international law, human rights, and economic justice."
~ Doctor Jill Stein, telling us what we are fighting for
Stand firm, Berners. Keep that Fire BERNing Green. Stand for what is right. Stop being afraid. Reject the politics of fear. Reject the Bifurcation Fallacy. If there were ever a year in which a third party candidate has a real chance to win the presidency, it is 2016. THIS is our moment. THIS is our chance. THIS is what we MUST do. WE are the revolution. WE are "The Bern." Hillary hopes to unleash a storm upon us, but WE are the storm which will wash away the corrupt establishment.
As you may know (and can verify from your list of campaign contributors), I have supported you in your bid for the presidency since last year. In two separate quarters, I contributed enough to be on the list which you were required to turn over to the FEC. ... the money I sent you was not money I could simply dole out willy-nilly, but I believed in your message and your ideals. I still believe in those ideals.
Many of your former supporters, since you endorsed Mrs Clinton, and more since you spoke on her behalf at the convention asking us to vote for her, have disparaged and vilified you, accused you of selling out or betrayal or both. I am sure this is not news to you. I have NOT been one of those. Search my posts on Google Plus ... You'll find nothing of the sort. I have tremendous respect for you.
I was raised in a conservative Republican family. When I first registered to vote in 1983, in spite of this state not requiring party registration, I insisted on having "Republican" on my registration form. I was Chair of College Republicans in the '84-'85 academic year at my university. During the summer terms of 1985, I took "Western Thought and Culture" (a general education version of Western Civ) and "20th Century Europe" (a senior-level course in the HIST department). The next year, I took two semesters of Logic. My eyes were opened to the direction in which the "conservative" movement of the time, and the Republican Party, were moving, and so I joined the Young Democrats at my university that year ('85-'86). I thereafter campaigned and voted for Democratic candidates for various offices, local, state, and federal. ... The Republican Party ... painted Mr Clinton as a "liberal" and a "socialist." I bought into their rhetoric and campaigned and voted for him when he ran for President in 1992. After he took office, however, I was dismayed and disappointed to see him cave on almost every lukewarm attempt he made to put forth any "liberal" or leftist policies at the first whiff of resistance from the opposition. I had not joined/registered Democrat, and I was pleased that I had not. I began looking into "third" parties. Since then, I have vacillated between supporting "third" party candidates ... and Democratic candidates, at the local, state, and federal levels. I did not vote in 2000; I was living out of state and still registered here, and my absentee ballot did not arrive in time for me to return it. Had it arrived in time, I would have voted for Nader, as I had done four years previously. I cannot say if I would have regretted it or not as a result of George Bush the Lesser being "elected," so I will not attempt to analyze that hypothetical situation to find an answer. I have, however, since then, voted for Democrats for President with a single exception, that being Obama's first run, when I felt I could support nobody running. I was generally favorable toward Obama, but resented the insinuations I kept seeing that people who did not vote for him were racist. I resent the blatant allegations in this year's primary season as well that anyone who voted for you over Hillary was sexist, but I supported you before that crap started.
When you declared your candidacy, I looked into your record, your stances, your platform. I liked what I saw. I thought to myself, "Gigi, this is the guy you thought you were voting for back in 1992." I therefore enthusiastically supported your candidacy. I campaigned for you on social media and contributed financially to your campaign. I joined various communities on Google Plus which were explicitly formed to support your candidacy, and some which were "Progressive" and/or "Leftist." I was eventually made a Moderator of one such community, the "American Progressives" community on Google Plus. I even acted against my better judgment and paid dues in December to become a member of the Democratic National Committee for this year, solely because of your candidacy.
I do not know your motivation(s) for endorsing Mrs Clinton and speaking at the convention on her behalf, asking your supporters to vote for her. I have seen various claims, including one that you were required to agree to do so when you declared your candidacy as a Democrat. If that be the case, it only serves to confirm that you are the man of integrity whom I believe you to be. But I do not know your motivation(s) for this choice. I can therefore not judge you for it. In spite of this choice on your part, in response to your Facebook post of yesterday, yes, Sir, I respect you, immensely.
That said, I will not be supporting or voting for Hillary Clinton as you have asked. To do so would be to violate everything both you and I stand for. I will instead vote for the greater good, not the "lesser" evil (and there is room for doubt as to which of the two main parties' candidates is the lesser evil anyway). The little DNC has cried "Wolf!" far too many times in an effort to prop up the limited and limiting, simplistic and harmful bifurcation fallacy on which the two-party system is based. This monopolistic dualism has been a plague on Western societies for some 1500 years with its eternal false dilemma which offers two and only two choices, ignoring the reality that more than two options exist. We've seen the bifurcation fallacy expressed in religion (Jesus or Satan and no other options), in economics (Unbridled Capitalism or Collectivist Dictatorship and no other options), and in partisan politics (Democrat or Republican and no other options), as well as in other situations (Coke vs Pepsi?). It is time for an end to the two-party system. It is time to vote for what we want, and stop voting against what we are afraid of.
I have listened to and read your various speeches and comments about Donald Trump, and your view that we must stop him from becoming President. While I certainly do not want him to win, I'm not afraid of the big bad Trump and I refuse to submit my intellect to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Metum. I will not be terrorized into voting for a corrupt, lying, incompetent, neoconservative masquerading as a liberal. I will not cooperate in the efforts to prostitute me to the Neoliberalism to which the Democratic candidate wishes to pimp us all out.
I will remind you, Sir, that you stated, at an MSNBC "town hall," on 25 April 2016 (see this video starting at 12:38), the following:
"I think it is, you know, we are not a movement where I can snap my fingers and say to you or anybody else what you should do, because you won't listen to me. You shouldn't. You'll make these decisions yourself."
I will remind you also, Sir, of your rejection of messiah-ship during one of your rallies, when you exclaimed:
"No! No, no! ... The truth is you, not me. If there is any person here, any person here that thinks I’m coming to you as some kind of savior, that I’m going to do it all — all myself, you’re wrong. No president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. We don’t need a savior. We need a political movement."
Senator, you are a man of honor, worthy of honor and respect, but you are indeed not our savior. We must save ourselves. You told us this movement was not about you, but about us. Sir, WE are the revolution; WE are "The Bern." Dr Stein says "It's in OUR hands." She is correct. The time has come to end the two-party system, to deflate the ego of Donald Trump, and to dash the narcissistic ambitions of Hillary Clinton. She cannot win in November, barring some completely idiotic act or statement by Trump (not that I would put it past him, but I simply don't believe that those who plan to vote for him will ever shift their support to Mrs Clinton; she is a widely despised and deeply flawed candidate, and the Democratic Party, which could have ensured a win by nominating you, has instead shot themselves in the foot and screwed the pooch by nominating her).
I am no novice in political activism or partisan politics, Senator. I do not imagine for one second that it will be easy, but I am also aware of the numbers; if we were to add all the registered Republicans and all the registered Democrats together, they would still be less than half of all registered voters. While that does not mean that the majority are Greens, it does mean that the majority are potential Green voters (because, even in a state like this which does not require party registration, the most decidedly partisan will insist on it). I will be working against Trump, but also against Hillary. I will be working for Jill. I am by no means alone in this. More of your supporters share this perspective than the mainstream media are admitting. Hillary was already an unlikely winner before the rigged elections, voter suppression, and collusion of the DNC with her campaign, and the insults and disrespect to you and us who have been your supporters. Now she has no chance. You are backing a losing horse, Sir. It is, perhaps, too late now that Dr Stein has named her VP running mate for you to give ear to her overtures and become her running mate, and indeed, it would be a shit move on her part to replace the running mate she has already selected with you. But I do hope you will stop pleading so heartily with us to come back and support the very system which we can no longer stomach, the system which made it plain that it has no use for us other than to rubber stamp its chosen candidate no matter what we would prefer. The Democratic Party is too far gone to be reformed. It must (if you will excuse me for using this spelling) Bern, Sir, and be replaced with a party which does stand for progressive and leftist ideals. I am sure you know this, but cannot admit it publicly, for whatever reason(s).
My Heroes have always fought for the Republic, and against empire. Proud of you? Yes, Sir, I am. However, I will be voting for Jill Stein for President, and I will urge all progressive leftists, and all thinking people, to free themselves from the fallacies upon which the two-party system relies. My voice does not reach as far as yours, Senator, but I do have my own audience. Many of them will hear my call. Most of them have already made up their minds without my influence. We Bern Green.
