FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

 The Impossibility of Intransigent Transcendence

On Thursday, August 22, 2019, the Resolutions Committee of the Democrat’s National Committee (of Super-delegates) voted 17 to 8 against the possibility of a debate between their presidential candidates focussed on climate change. That means that slightly over 2/3rds of the Resolution Committee opposes such a debate.

On Saturday, August 24, 2019, the DNC (of Super-delegates) voted 222 to 137 against having a forum ( instead of a debate) focussed on climate change. That means that just under 2/3rds of the DNC opposes the presidential candidates gathering to discuss climate change.

At about the same time, Nina Turner, one of Bernie Sanders’ campaign co-chairs was speaking out about how the supposed United States of America was in need of a moment of “national transcendence” wherein the people could rise above partisanship and imagine/envision a better world than what is possible under the privately corporatized status quo. It has been reported that when she learned of the DNC Resolution Committee’s denial of a debate on climate change, she encouraged the candidates to try to work against the DNC’s dictate.

There is an elephantine ass in the room.

If any of the candidates and their supporters believe that climate change must be discussed because it is something which humans can affect and if they believe that climate change is an imminent threat to many or most  forms of life on this planet, why are they subservient democrats or republicans?

Is the answer to that question the same reason there has not been any  “national transcendence?”

There are recent surveys of voters which clearly indicate that approximately 2/3rds of democrats consider climate change a major, serious threat to our wellbeing. With republicans, only about 2/10ths (1/5th) think it is a concern. If comparing it with these these two identity groups, it is clear the preference of the DNC is much more in line with the beliefs of republican voters.

The actions of the majority of the DNC seem to, once again, prioritize – above all else – the calculating desire to appeal to vain republican intransigence and a stubbornly smug opposition to discussions which might lead to responsible and egalitarian behavior. The DNC want republican votes and to get them they are willing to appeal to and promote the crudest motivations. Clearly, they are not going to allow socially and environmentally responsible behavior to get in the way of their shared game of winning a trophy presidency through their republican-supporting worship of militarized, dehumanizing, unrestrained, privatized monetary accumulation. If they were to worry about the effects they have on other people or the environment it would be seen as heresy within their shared religion.

The central question remains.

Why are supposed ”progressives” insisting that they stay inside of, and pour their energy into, an organization which clearly sees them as losers? If looked at from an historical perspective, it seems to lead to a strong likelihood that the DNC has plenty of electoral proofs that the supposed “progressive” wing of their party is a whiny bunch of masochists who get some kind of delight out of punishment. This chronic tendency of supposed progressives to fall in line with those who prefer to silence their concerns and to abandon their priorities (once they have been used in the game of corporate dominance) makes it more than understandable that the DNC is confidently pissing on the would-be progressives. The DNC is confident that their self-captured would-be progressives lack the stamina (much less, the courage) to resist the privatizing republican corporatism which is central to the Super-delegated DNC. The answer to the paragraph’s opening question can be found in the behavior of those whose brainwashed religiosity stops them from repudiating the long-standing, blatant corruption of their religion. In short, they do not need to necessarily believe what they say they believe as much as they need to identify as members of a delusional, corrupt, republican-preferring, deregulating, capitalist religiosity.

The intransigence of the stated desires of the so-called “progressive democrats” is, at least partially, their own doing. As long as they cling to the abusiveness of their beloved DNC piracy, they will be treated with the same disdain. “Progressive democrats” are a guarantee of failure. They are their own worst enemies. Their submissive complicity is well established and it is abundantly obvious to the DNC that supposed progressive democrats are primarily delusional participants with imaginary friends.

Hypocrisy and piracy are rampant in the capitalist parties. Getting on board those ships only guarantees the vision of the Jolly Roger and a continuation of social and environmental debauchery.

The majority of voters in the faking USA are republican capitalists – even as a majority of them seem to believe otherwise. Working within the current system is only a guarantee of its continuing self-destructiveness.

There is no need for passion.

A standing apart from the corruption is the needed first step toward a necessary integrity and the subsequent possibility of any transcendence (the possibility of which becomes less with every submission to the arrogant corruptions promulgated by the DNC and their allied RNC).  To anyone who claims to be a progressive democrat I can only say – your bondage (and the connected toxicity) must be seen as being of your own making and unmaking. They do not need you. They tolerate and use you for private gain. Why do you believe that you need them?

If you fear for the way things are going to become worse and you cling to the agents of the cause of your fear, you need to face your own hypocrisy and say, “ I will no longer countenance my complicity.”

You must also be prepared for their attacks. Attacking others is their chief delight and, even as democrats and republicans attack each other, anyone who steps beyond their pirate ships is a more likely target of their mutual disdain.

So, at this late date I can only ask, what kind of loser do you want to be, Inside or outside?

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
November 20, 2019
Vijay Prashad
The Coup in Bolivia Has Everything to Do With the Screen You’re Using to Read This
Kenneth Surin
Labor and the UK General Election
Ron Jacobs
The Trumpists’ Attempts at Snark Define Their Day: Impeachment Day Three
George Ochenski
The Walls are Closing in on Donald Trump
Timothy M. Gill
Towards a Democratic Socialist Foreign Policy
Robert Hunziker
Neoliberalism Backfires
Thomas S. Harrington
Let’s Give Three Cheers for Those “Western Ears” 
Michelle Renee Matisons
Freedom, Valor, Love: On Snowden’s Permanent Record
James C. Nelson
How Trump is Warping the Federal Courts: the Case Against Lawrence VanDyke
Rev. William Alberts
Whistleblowing Religion
Chandra Muzaffar
The Coup That Ousted Morales
Mike Garrity
Trump Administration Ignores Court Order Stopping 85,000 Acre Payette Forest Logging and Burning Project, Conservation Groups Sue
Andrew Moss
Raising the Stakes in the Struggle Over Immigration Detention
Dean Baker
Making Andrew Yang Smarter
Lawrence Wittner
The People of the World
November 19, 2019
Ramzy Baroud
How Western Media Bias Allows Israel to Getaway with Murder in Gaza
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan’s Ethnic Cleansing of the Kurds is Still Happening
Dave Lindorff
Student Protesters are Walking a Tightrope in Hong Kong
Richard Greeman
French Yellow Vests Celebrate First Birthday, Converge With Planned Labor Strikes
Dean Baker
Impeachment is a Kitchen Table Issue
Walden Bello
Is China an “Imperial Power” in the Image of the West?
Jim Britell
Modern Biology and Ecology: the Roots Of America’s Assertive Illiteracy
Sabri Öncü
Non-Financial Private Debt Overhang
John Steppling
Baby Shark Coup
Binoy Kampmark
Open Guidelines: The Foreign Interference Problem in Australian Universities
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Greece and the Struggle for Freedom
Colin Todhunter
Lab Rats for Corporate Profit: Pesticide Industry’s Poisoned Platter
James Graham
Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn on the Eve of the Debate
Elliot Sperber
Scrutiny – From Scruta
November 18, 2019
Olivia Arigho-Stiles
Protestors Massacred in Post-Coup Bolivia
Ashley Smith
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Macho Camacho: Jeffery R. Webber and Forrest Hylton on the Coup in Bolivia
Robert Fisk
Michael Lynk’s UN Report on Israeli Settlements Speaks the Truth, But the World Refuses to Listen
Ron Jacobs
Stefanik Stands By Her Man and Roger Stone Gets Convicted on All Counts: Impeachment Day Two
John Feffer
The Fall of the Berlin Wall, Shock Therapy and the Rise of Trump
Stephen Cooper
Another Death Penalty Horror: Stark Disparities in Media and Activist Attention
Bill Hatch
A New Silence
Gary Macfarlane
The Future of Wilderness Under Trump: Recreation or Wreckreation?
Laura Flanders
#SayHerName, Impeachment, and a Hawk
Ralph Nader
The Most Impeachable President vs. The Most Hesitant Congress. What Are The Democrats Waiting For?
Robert Koehler
Celebrating Peace: A Work in Progress
Walter Clemens
American Oblivion
Weekend Edition
November 15, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
Meet Ukraine: America’s Newest “Strategic Ally”
Rob Urie
Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Ukraine in the Membrane
Jonathan Steele
The OPCW and Douma: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Accused of Evidence-Tampering by Its Own Inspectors
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail