Regular followers of dbcgreentx, here or on Facebook, know that I've become a drooling fanboy for Caitlin Johnstone. I'm not going to say she gets everything correct, and sometimes she offers glimpses of a paranoia that makes my own appear mild by comparison. But she's a cracker-jack progressive analyst, writer, and memester, one who traffics in chunks of uncomfortable truth.
In her Newslogue entry this morning, Caity included the photo assemblage below. At left, in case the face is unfamiliar, is Cenk Uygur, Sultan of The Young Turks, proponent of curing the rot in the Democratic National Committee through a grassroots takeover by Progressives. At right, of course, is Green Party standard-bearer Dr. Jill Stein, on whom I have lavished much praise in previous posts. The photo symbolizes how #DemEnter and #DemExit might work in concert to bring about effective reforms and create an opposition party that represents The People.
It's a laudable goal, but is it feasible?
Just before Election Day 2016, Uygur devoted 20 minutes of video time to announcing that he would be reluctantly casting his vote for Hillary Clinton. In California. A safe state already in the bag for Hillary. As if his one vote for Clinton could stop the Trump Train from winning those swing states in the Rust Belt. Smart Voters, Foolish Choices. I whinged about it here.
Since Election Day, Uygur and his TYT posse have hammered on the corruption within the DNC, the DNC's reluctance to make necessary changes, and how Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump in the general election if only the super-delegates had seen the light.
Anyway, back to Caity: Her main point is that the Progressive Takeover and #DemExit are not mutually exclusive or even in direct competition, when it comes to #Resistance. I'm inclined to agree, but only if the Taker-Overers come out of the woodwork in sufficient numbers. In previous posts I have expressed my belief that working with the Democratic Party as currently constituted is a dead end.
In my estimation, a takeover of the Democratic Party must be massive, nationwide, quick, and ruthless—far more massive than the wave of Californians who bolted from the Green Party to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary there. Green registrations dropped from over 110,000 in 2014 to under 78,000 in May 2016. The Sanders Greens did not make a big enough dent in the June Primary: Clinton polled at 55% and picked up 338 of the 548 delegates.
Even if the Takeover draws from current progressive Democrats, Green-Blue voters, Socialists, and a horde of habitual non-voters, a) the numbers aren't there (at least not yet) and b) the moneyed interests are too entrenched in the party to allow it to happen.
A true progressive revolt in the Party requires telling corporate and big-money donors and to take a hike—and the neo-liberal horse they rode in on. The average Takeover Democrat would have to pony up way more than $27 to replace the money lost and keep the party viable.
Also, where would these spurned donors turn to advance their neo-liberal agenda? Three guesses, first two don't count.
Blogging Sporadically since 2014
Here you will find political campaign-related entries, as well as some about my literature, Houston underground arts, peace & justice, urban cycling, soccer, alt-religion, and other topics.