As an independent/NPP that thinks the Democratic Party is at a once-in-a-generation pinnacle of depravity and evil (totalitarian neo-communism, abuses of police state power, censorship, absurd regime propaganda), this version of your argument doesn't make any more sense than the first one. FDR was, like Woodrow Wilson, and awful, war mongering "progressive". FDR's version of things was a failure that led to the crap we are facing now. Going back to FDR solves nothing.
Again, Jon Stewart has shown ZERO ability to be consistently trans-partisan and to consistently apply meta-narrative analysis.
His blather about trans gender stuff with the Arkansas governor made clear that he is a partisan tribalist that is incapable of escaping the leftist echo chamber's inability to stay in touch with reality.
The "woke" "left" has conditioned a generation to respond to bizarre, irrational, illberal hate ideology. Jon Stewart shows no signs, as far as I can tell, of reversing the damage from that. He did make a mild statement about how the COVID response was out of line (or something about Fauci's glaring lies?), but that was a classic example of him repeating what others had already said.
His track record is overwhelming: he kisses the ass of the establishment (aprx) 98% of the time.
Please keep my closing in mind. This isn't about Stewart. It's about a way to create a viable Democratic Party primary. Stewart is just a case in point. And yes, it will take a celebrity — someone like Stewart or a political celebrity — to pry that can open.
Absent that, we get what we got last time. For me this is simple. Other thoughts?
Relying on a celebrity to "pry that can open" seems like a dubious prospect to me. You seem to be projecting the need to gather a large mass of voters onto the existence of a celebrity. Perhaps it is too simple, something like the "great man" theory of history ("but where would be be if we didn't have billionaires?!"), and doesn't really fit to the real-world need of organizing a mass of people to force change. What is the answer? I'd say organizing, but I think that's another topic altogether. But a celebrity seems more like a McGuffin (or plot trick) than a real solution. It looks more like waiting for a savior to ride out of heaven. No, we don't need that. Or rather, that's more like waiting for Godot.
As I probably said before, Bernie's mass left-populist movement was real (for a short time), but the soulless sociopaths that pull the strings of the Democratic party establishment puppets (and President SenilePuppet) stopped all that dead in its tracks by getting the corrupt southern black party elites* to stab Bernie in the back.
At that point the "progressives" showed their cowardice and weakness.
Nothing has changed and nothing will change.
-----
* how Democratic "Tammany Hall" style party-machine politics actually works:
I can't believe you're still flogging that wet sock Stewart! No, it is not clear in any way "he gets it" just because of a couple of interview quotes. This is one of the Democrat's main problems, they can't give up on their status quo mediocrities, they just love them too much (even the ones who aren't TV celebrities). No wonder we can never get the change we send them to Washington to enact.
Also I'm not so sure about your notion of 'democracy,' which seems to me to be simple majoritarianism ("what most people want," as you said, but in reality it is what most voters want), and nothing about the demos, or people, ruling. You might be just as fine with those who simply want to strengthen the status quo, but after many years I have come to the conclusion those people are largely the comfortable class who like their politico-technocrats "who know better," and are opposed to people-rule (i.e. the very definition of democracy), and therefore are largely anti-democratic.
You may be happy with them (as you said), but these are the people in the front ranks who stand in the way of the change we need. These are the people who would rather take away our freedoms than see us discuss what we see as important, for example. It was in one of your recent posts in which this was made clear, 'Democrats vs. Democrats.' They have already effectively gutted our right to privacy, and now they are attempting to gut our right to free speech.
It should also be mentioned that this censorship issue has only accelerated because of the Russia-Ukraine War. Forget about anyone who disagrees with burning through hundreds of billions "as long as it takes" (while Flint, Michigan is still drinking poisoned water) they simply are not allowed to speak publicly anymore. It's the narrative, and only the narrative, or else. Independent news sites that have questioned various aspects of the narrative, such as Consortium News, find their social media accounts blocked without any explanation, and their funding threatened by being dropped from Paypal (again with no explanation), and simply for bringing up inconvenient yet provable facts.
Look, if censorship and war are the hills the Democratic Party wants to die on, then they should go ahead and get to the dying part. I will have nothing to do with the party because of these two issues. Their hatred of free speech and love for war, even among the so-called "Progressive" wing (not even to mention the worthless "Squad") is as disgusting to me as anything the Republicans would do. These two issues are the ones they are most zealous over (which I will compare to their lack of action over abortion access), so I want nothing to do with them. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," plain and simple.
The two main factions of the ruling power elites that are the real puppet masters pulling the strings are:
1. east coast finance, which is a subset of international finance
2. digital media-tech oligarchs
The palace guards are the PMC (Ehrenreich), the professional-managerial class in the education establishment, mainstream "journalism", etc.
The unholy alliance of Finance-Media-Tech-PMC "virtuals" is only opposed by a weaker alliance of "physicals":
3. traditional manufacturing industries (including oil) and family run farms and small businesses, along with their employees (about 90% of Republicans).
-----
The biggest problem of the "virtuals" (#1 and #2) was described by historian Christopher Lasch (who was a leftist when young, then reformed his thinking):
... a passage from the late Christopher Lasch’s book The Revolt of the Elites ... worth repeating here:
The thinking classes are fatally removed from the physical side of life… Their only relation to productive labor is that of consumers. They have no experience of making anything substantial or enduring. They live in a world of abstractions and images, a simulated world that consists of computerized models of reality – “hyperreality,” as it’s been called – as distinguished from the palatable, immediate, physical reality inhabited by ordinary men and women. Their
[--->] belief in “social construction of reality”
[--->] – the central dogma of postmodernist thought
– reflects the experience of living in an artificial environment from which everything that resists human control (unavoidably, everything familiar and reassuring as well) has been rigorously excluded. Control has become their obsession. In their drive to insulate themselves against risk and contingency – against the unpredictable hazards that afflict human life – the thinking classes have seceded not just from the common world around them but from reality itself.
Great piece. You've convinced me. I am going to compliment you. Whereas other writers are playing checkers you are playing chess. I like how you've built your argument over the past several apparently non related essays.
Just what we need, another rich person leading us into more wars. No thanks. I also would not vote for Bernie again either, since he has proven himself to be onboard with the endless wars. My number one criterion is a non-negotiable anti-war, pro-peace stance. Biden said "diplomacy is back!" and we see how hollow that obviously was. No more rich Blue Team people for me. Not a chance.
Pure nonsense. Leave out rfk jr the o b lyrics seriousl candidate. Not another war mongering cuk who glorifies baby killers like h I leary and Albright. He a disgusting wono version of himself.
And BTE, Sanders the cuk lost his appeal long ago.
If we are going to waste time on supporting a comedian for President, let’s go with Jimmy Dore or maybe Lee Camp. Someone who would try to make meaningful change, not the leader of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.
As an independent/NPP that thinks the Democratic Party is at a once-in-a-generation pinnacle of depravity and evil (totalitarian neo-communism, abuses of police state power, censorship, absurd regime propaganda), this version of your argument doesn't make any more sense than the first one. FDR was, like Woodrow Wilson, and awful, war mongering "progressive". FDR's version of things was a failure that led to the crap we are facing now. Going back to FDR solves nothing.
Again, Jon Stewart has shown ZERO ability to be consistently trans-partisan and to consistently apply meta-narrative analysis.
His blather about trans gender stuff with the Arkansas governor made clear that he is a partisan tribalist that is incapable of escaping the leftist echo chamber's inability to stay in touch with reality.
The "woke" "left" has conditioned a generation to respond to bizarre, irrational, illberal hate ideology. Jon Stewart shows no signs, as far as I can tell, of reversing the damage from that. He did make a mild statement about how the COVID response was out of line (or something about Fauci's glaring lies?), but that was a classic example of him repeating what others had already said.
His track record is overwhelming: he kisses the ass of the establishment (aprx) 98% of the time.
Note: Changed the title a bit to reflect what I took to be the main point. Thanks for the feedback!
Thomas
Wow. I appreciate the lively discussion.
Please keep my closing in mind. This isn't about Stewart. It's about a way to create a viable Democratic Party primary. Stewart is just a case in point. And yes, it will take a celebrity — someone like Stewart or a political celebrity — to pry that can open.
Absent that, we get what we got last time. For me this is simple. Other thoughts?
Thomas
Relying on a celebrity to "pry that can open" seems like a dubious prospect to me. You seem to be projecting the need to gather a large mass of voters onto the existence of a celebrity. Perhaps it is too simple, something like the "great man" theory of history ("but where would be be if we didn't have billionaires?!"), and doesn't really fit to the real-world need of organizing a mass of people to force change. What is the answer? I'd say organizing, but I think that's another topic altogether. But a celebrity seems more like a McGuffin (or plot trick) than a real solution. It looks more like waiting for a savior to ride out of heaven. No, we don't need that. Or rather, that's more like waiting for Godot.
As I probably said before, Bernie's mass left-populist movement was real (for a short time), but the soulless sociopaths that pull the strings of the Democratic party establishment puppets (and President SenilePuppet) stopped all that dead in its tracks by getting the corrupt southern black party elites* to stab Bernie in the back.
At that point the "progressives" showed their cowardice and weakness.
Nothing has changed and nothing will change.
-----
* how Democratic "Tammany Hall" style party-machine politics actually works:
https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/people/pendergast-machine/
socialwelfare. library. vcu. edu /people/pendergast-machine/
I can't believe you're still flogging that wet sock Stewart! No, it is not clear in any way "he gets it" just because of a couple of interview quotes. This is one of the Democrat's main problems, they can't give up on their status quo mediocrities, they just love them too much (even the ones who aren't TV celebrities). No wonder we can never get the change we send them to Washington to enact.
Also I'm not so sure about your notion of 'democracy,' which seems to me to be simple majoritarianism ("what most people want," as you said, but in reality it is what most voters want), and nothing about the demos, or people, ruling. You might be just as fine with those who simply want to strengthen the status quo, but after many years I have come to the conclusion those people are largely the comfortable class who like their politico-technocrats "who know better," and are opposed to people-rule (i.e. the very definition of democracy), and therefore are largely anti-democratic.
You may be happy with them (as you said), but these are the people in the front ranks who stand in the way of the change we need. These are the people who would rather take away our freedoms than see us discuss what we see as important, for example. It was in one of your recent posts in which this was made clear, 'Democrats vs. Democrats.' They have already effectively gutted our right to privacy, and now they are attempting to gut our right to free speech.
It should also be mentioned that this censorship issue has only accelerated because of the Russia-Ukraine War. Forget about anyone who disagrees with burning through hundreds of billions "as long as it takes" (while Flint, Michigan is still drinking poisoned water) they simply are not allowed to speak publicly anymore. It's the narrative, and only the narrative, or else. Independent news sites that have questioned various aspects of the narrative, such as Consortium News, find their social media accounts blocked without any explanation, and their funding threatened by being dropped from Paypal (again with no explanation), and simply for bringing up inconvenient yet provable facts.
Look, if censorship and war are the hills the Democratic Party wants to die on, then they should go ahead and get to the dying part. I will have nothing to do with the party because of these two issues. Their hatred of free speech and love for war, even among the so-called "Progressive" wing (not even to mention the worthless "Squad") is as disgusting to me as anything the Republicans would do. These two issues are the ones they are most zealous over (which I will compare to their lack of action over abortion access), so I want nothing to do with them. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," plain and simple.
re: NS Lyons on the "virtuals vs physicals"
The two main factions of the ruling power elites that are the real puppet masters pulling the strings are:
1. east coast finance, which is a subset of international finance
2. digital media-tech oligarchs
The palace guards are the PMC (Ehrenreich), the professional-managerial class in the education establishment, mainstream "journalism", etc.
The unholy alliance of Finance-Media-Tech-PMC "virtuals" is only opposed by a weaker alliance of "physicals":
3. traditional manufacturing industries (including oil) and family run farms and small businesses, along with their employees (about 90% of Republicans).
-----
The biggest problem of the "virtuals" (#1 and #2) was described by historian Christopher Lasch (who was a leftist when young, then reformed his thinking):
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/reality-honks-back
excerpt:
... a passage from the late Christopher Lasch’s book The Revolt of the Elites ... worth repeating here:
The thinking classes are fatally removed from the physical side of life… Their only relation to productive labor is that of consumers. They have no experience of making anything substantial or enduring. They live in a world of abstractions and images, a simulated world that consists of computerized models of reality – “hyperreality,” as it’s been called – as distinguished from the palatable, immediate, physical reality inhabited by ordinary men and women. Their
[--->] belief in “social construction of reality”
[--->] – the central dogma of postmodernist thought
– reflects the experience of living in an artificial environment from which everything that resists human control (unavoidably, everything familiar and reassuring as well) has been rigorously excluded. Control has become their obsession. In their drive to insulate themselves against risk and contingency – against the unpredictable hazards that afflict human life – the thinking classes have seceded not just from the common world around them but from reality itself.
Great piece. You've convinced me. I am going to compliment you. Whereas other writers are playing checkers you are playing chess. I like how you've built your argument over the past several apparently non related essays.
Thanks, Brian. I'm glad you see my devious little plan.
Thomas
Just what we need, another rich person leading us into more wars. No thanks. I also would not vote for Bernie again either, since he has proven himself to be onboard with the endless wars. My number one criterion is a non-negotiable anti-war, pro-peace stance. Biden said "diplomacy is back!" and we see how hollow that obviously was. No more rich Blue Team people for me. Not a chance.
Pure nonsense. Leave out rfk jr the o b lyrics seriousl candidate. Not another war mongering cuk who glorifies baby killers like h I leary and Albright. He a disgusting wono version of himself.
And BTE, Sanders the cuk lost his appeal long ago.
Give us a break from your fantasies.
Stewart's appearance with Ukie nazis at Disney gives me pause.
If we are going to waste time on supporting a comedian for President, let’s go with Jimmy Dore or maybe Lee Camp. Someone who would try to make meaningful change, not the leader of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.
Does no one remember Al Franken? Or how easy it was to remove him from office when it was discovered that not all his jokes were in good taste?
No comedians please. That's how Ukraine got Zelensky.
Because one veal pen isn't enough.