So true: “Still there, terrified of the ghost of Ronald Reagan, terrified of the hope of a functional economy, terrified of the rich, terrified of the military industrial complex, terrified of Israel and AIPAC. Terrified, terrified, terrified.”
Yup. Republicans emerge from the birth canal yellng: “You’re soft on crime and national security.” Democrats emerge from the birth canal whimpering: “Please don’t call us soft on crime and national security. We’ll do whatever you say we should.” That’s why I’m still a registered blank after all those years of not registering as either a Democrat or a Republican, because I was a journalist. Still, I vote Democratic ninety-nine percent of the time, even for warmongers like Hillary Clinton, because Trump was an unthinkable candidate. Now he’s an unthinkable, unthinking president, a lunatic with nuclear codes.
Thank you for this, Corbin. I appreciate the reminder that meaningful change is rarely the result of a single election, candidate, or moment. It comes from people willing to keep showing up, articulating a vision, building relationships, and expanding what seems politically possible.
Whatever the results today, the deeper question remains one of capacity: What kinds of communities, institutions, and civic cultures are we cultivating, and are they capable of meeting the challenges of our time? Elections matter, but so does the long-term work of renewal that happens between them.
I don't think the D party can be born, or reborn. They are WAY too entrenched, and addicted to the money and the contact high they get being adjacent to tech brollionaires. They're going to nominate Newsom for PotUS, and will keep on losing because they're perfectly happy to lose as long as they get their money.
Our only hope is that progressives keep winning and eventually form a Brand New Party (what a catchy name!)
New party efforts appear as difficult/ futile as you (well state) the dem situation. It's quite a closed shop in near all regards. Perhaps a well promoted national "NONE of the above" action might have some impact along with some serious national boycotts and "no work" days .The few "good ones" that may get elected are often co-opted and taking the long view seems just another tool being used to keep delaying real change. This control/enslavement nonsense needs to stop and yes we need to participate in change...but this Dem party? I'm surprised Mr.Corbin believes its the best way albeit his actions and brilliant commentaries
I still don't understand why Hakeem Jeffries is running unopposed when so many progressives are challenging establishment incumbents. Can anyone shed light on that for me?
I missed all the intervening steps when you suddenly were all anti-AOC. She’s the only Dem who’s been campaigning against oligarchs since the beginning. The only one. It’s her and Bernie.
Thank you for this! Would you give a shout out to the two excellent progressive candidates (Alexis Goldstein, Ethan Wechtaluk--wish it were just 1 of them, but we couldn't make that happen) running against billionaires/multi-millionaires/establishment Democrats in Maryland's District 6? Today's the day, so I don't know how many will see, but if it could make a difference it's worth it.
Corbin said it all and even more if you read between the lines. His allegiance to the Democratic Party is not tactical, but strategic. He firmly believes in the revival of the liberal democracy of the FDR style even though there is abundant evidence (and multiple readers' comments) that this is a highly unlikely scenario.
It's very similar to the climate change denialism and, more generally, science denialism because it is impossible in principle to exactly predict single probabilistic events. It's always an inference, which is, essentially, a scientific or unscientific guess (based on assumptions, models, theories, etc.) that can be verified only in retrospect, which, in many cases, has little practical value. And in the fields like climate, medicine, or social life, where there are so many variables and conditions and individual events are very important, statistics (the only scientific resort) is commonly neglected, perverted, or bluntly rejected in favor of (usually) common sense, gut feeling, etc., which are often illogical and even irrational.
That's why we have Trump and MAGA on one side of the popular political spectrum and Sanders, AOC, DSA, Corbin, etc. on the other side. Regardless of the level of personal sincerity, both sides are unlikely to achieve their publicly stated objectives, which in many cases are just slogans. Many more people will be disappointed and will be offered different slogans and interim solutions. And this "business as usual" will continue until a real systemic or ecological crisis breaks in, which might take decades despite some radical Left opinions and is totally uncertain at this point. What is certain is that a lack of "building activity" in this country is unlikely to weaken its economic and political system, but a well-organized, consolidated, democratic, popular Third Force, not a declarative and rhetorical Sanders/AOC opposition, might. Unfortunately, it's nowhere on the horizon in this country. To build this Force is a much more "worthy fight", albeit difficult and uncertain, than election of a few progressive Democrats, but it can possibly be accomplished in six years, especially if our economic situation deteriorates. And Corbin is a perfect candidate to initiate such an endeavor.
The main purpose of this system is to make profits, not build things, and it will find a way to deal with the material deficit. This way will be "sold" to the public under any cover as far as it provides growing profits. Popular opinion will be manipulated, and possible discontent will be alleviated, redirected, or suppressed. The ruling elites are powerful and clever enough not to exceed the social boiling point, which might be highly "inconvenient". Only the Third Force with massive popular support, under favorable conditions, can attempt to transform this system in a meaningful, not superficial, way. Hopefully, Corbin will realize it rather sooner than later, but it can become increasingly difficult to do technically after 1932 if Republicans win.
Corbin, you are such a beacon of light and intellect in the gloom of darkness and disaster. Yes, I have been disappointed by AOC's timidity. In Colorado, she is all over Diana DeGette's ads voicing endorsements, instead of supporting Melat Kiros, the Justice Democrat. DeGette isn't terrible, by any means, but she has been Denver's Rep for 30 years. And what has she accomplished? She now says she supports Medicare for All -- 30 years, and Now she supports Medicare for All?
Hello Corbin... Another Excellent Post... Thank-You... With the advent of A.I, and Detrimental Climate-Change, Change-Is-Coming... A New Solution Will Be Found... How About A Pragmatist Party...
Chevalier seems pretty out there to me. She has staked out maximalist positions like abolishing the police and the border, saying "Israel doesn't exist" and refusing to condemn Hamas. She glibly compares the plight of Gazans to black Americans. In a super-blue district, whoever wins the Dem primary will automatically win so no worries there, but I do worry about how Dems like her give the right-wing fodder to say, "Look at how crazy and extremist Dems are" in the same way MTG gave liberals plenty of ammo to paint the right as insane.
So true: “Still there, terrified of the ghost of Ronald Reagan, terrified of the hope of a functional economy, terrified of the rich, terrified of the military industrial complex, terrified of Israel and AIPAC. Terrified, terrified, terrified.”
Yup. Republicans emerge from the birth canal yellng: “You’re soft on crime and national security.” Democrats emerge from the birth canal whimpering: “Please don’t call us soft on crime and national security. We’ll do whatever you say we should.” That’s why I’m still a registered blank after all those years of not registering as either a Democrat or a Republican, because I was a journalist. Still, I vote Democratic ninety-nine percent of the time, even for warmongers like Hillary Clinton, because Trump was an unthinkable candidate. Now he’s an unthinkable, unthinking president, a lunatic with nuclear codes.
Thank you for this, Corbin. I appreciate the reminder that meaningful change is rarely the result of a single election, candidate, or moment. It comes from people willing to keep showing up, articulating a vision, building relationships, and expanding what seems politically possible.
Whatever the results today, the deeper question remains one of capacity: What kinds of communities, institutions, and civic cultures are we cultivating, and are they capable of meeting the challenges of our time? Elections matter, but so does the long-term work of renewal that happens between them.
I don't think the D party can be born, or reborn. They are WAY too entrenched, and addicted to the money and the contact high they get being adjacent to tech brollionaires. They're going to nominate Newsom for PotUS, and will keep on losing because they're perfectly happy to lose as long as they get their money.
Our only hope is that progressives keep winning and eventually form a Brand New Party (what a catchy name!)
New party efforts appear as difficult/ futile as you (well state) the dem situation. It's quite a closed shop in near all regards. Perhaps a well promoted national "NONE of the above" action might have some impact along with some serious national boycotts and "no work" days .The few "good ones" that may get elected are often co-opted and taking the long view seems just another tool being used to keep delaying real change. This control/enslavement nonsense needs to stop and yes we need to participate in change...but this Dem party? I'm surprised Mr.Corbin believes its the best way albeit his actions and brilliant commentaries
I still don't understand why Hakeem Jeffries is running unopposed when so many progressives are challenging establishment incumbents. Can anyone shed light on that for me?
I missed all the intervening steps when you suddenly were all anti-AOC. She’s the only Dem who’s been campaigning against oligarchs since the beginning. The only one. It’s her and Bernie.
Thank you for this! Would you give a shout out to the two excellent progressive candidates (Alexis Goldstein, Ethan Wechtaluk--wish it were just 1 of them, but we couldn't make that happen) running against billionaires/multi-millionaires/establishment Democrats in Maryland's District 6? Today's the day, so I don't know how many will see, but if it could make a difference it's worth it.
Corbin said it all and even more if you read between the lines. His allegiance to the Democratic Party is not tactical, but strategic. He firmly believes in the revival of the liberal democracy of the FDR style even though there is abundant evidence (and multiple readers' comments) that this is a highly unlikely scenario.
It's very similar to the climate change denialism and, more generally, science denialism because it is impossible in principle to exactly predict single probabilistic events. It's always an inference, which is, essentially, a scientific or unscientific guess (based on assumptions, models, theories, etc.) that can be verified only in retrospect, which, in many cases, has little practical value. And in the fields like climate, medicine, or social life, where there are so many variables and conditions and individual events are very important, statistics (the only scientific resort) is commonly neglected, perverted, or bluntly rejected in favor of (usually) common sense, gut feeling, etc., which are often illogical and even irrational.
That's why we have Trump and MAGA on one side of the popular political spectrum and Sanders, AOC, DSA, Corbin, etc. on the other side. Regardless of the level of personal sincerity, both sides are unlikely to achieve their publicly stated objectives, which in many cases are just slogans. Many more people will be disappointed and will be offered different slogans and interim solutions. And this "business as usual" will continue until a real systemic or ecological crisis breaks in, which might take decades despite some radical Left opinions and is totally uncertain at this point. What is certain is that a lack of "building activity" in this country is unlikely to weaken its economic and political system, but a well-organized, consolidated, democratic, popular Third Force, not a declarative and rhetorical Sanders/AOC opposition, might. Unfortunately, it's nowhere on the horizon in this country. To build this Force is a much more "worthy fight", albeit difficult and uncertain, than election of a few progressive Democrats, but it can possibly be accomplished in six years, especially if our economic situation deteriorates. And Corbin is a perfect candidate to initiate such an endeavor.
The main purpose of this system is to make profits, not build things, and it will find a way to deal with the material deficit. This way will be "sold" to the public under any cover as far as it provides growing profits. Popular opinion will be manipulated, and possible discontent will be alleviated, redirected, or suppressed. The ruling elites are powerful and clever enough not to exceed the social boiling point, which might be highly "inconvenient". Only the Third Force with massive popular support, under favorable conditions, can attempt to transform this system in a meaningful, not superficial, way. Hopefully, Corbin will realize it rather sooner than later, but it can become increasingly difficult to do technically after 1932 if Republicans win.
Corbin, you are such a beacon of light and intellect in the gloom of darkness and disaster. Yes, I have been disappointed by AOC's timidity. In Colorado, she is all over Diana DeGette's ads voicing endorsements, instead of supporting Melat Kiros, the Justice Democrat. DeGette isn't terrible, by any means, but she has been Denver's Rep for 30 years. And what has she accomplished? She now says she supports Medicare for All -- 30 years, and Now she supports Medicare for All?
Hello Corbin... Another Excellent Post... Thank-You... With the advent of A.I, and Detrimental Climate-Change, Change-Is-Coming... A New Solution Will Be Found... How About A Pragmatist Party...
Chevalier seems pretty out there to me. She has staked out maximalist positions like abolishing the police and the border, saying "Israel doesn't exist" and refusing to condemn Hamas. She glibly compares the plight of Gazans to black Americans. In a super-blue district, whoever wins the Dem primary will automatically win so no worries there, but I do worry about how Dems like her give the right-wing fodder to say, "Look at how crazy and extremist Dems are" in the same way MTG gave liberals plenty of ammo to paint the right as insane.
Bravo.