Michael O’McCarthy, Greenville

Social revolutionaries and “progressives” have now come to a point more important in time other than perhaps the “War for Southern Independence,” as called by the Southern revisionists. We are now challenged to make a very difficult choice. The choice is between principles and personalities – between the principles that demand a major, structural social change vs. corporate state politics; of those candidates and democratic activists who scream “electability” which is a clarion call for yet another form of “Lesser Evilism.” That strategy may had value in choosing between capitalism and Nazism, democratic socialism and the varying brands of Stalinism, but offers no discernible hope for the change needed in this country.

There were difficult theoretical as well as practical issues in that time and of course the Lesser Evil was capitalism. Today there really is no difficulty. While the political ideologues of the corporate state would have us believe that we are either on their side, as Bush and Cheney have raved, or on the side of the hordes, (represented by the terrorists,) the real choice is between the State and the people. I choose in the interest of the people of the world.

Indeed, like no other time in modern history, we have little ideological structure or international support for either our analysis or our struggle. We are left herein to our own devices. We do so under a national government that has only contempt for the people and little other purpose than of exploiting or destroying the rest of the world.

Thus, the Duopoly and its vehicle of “globalization” and its military imperialism now face us with the consolidation of corporate state rule, not democracy. This Lesser Evilism is no longer a valid choice for those of us who know the need for fundamental social change if democracy is to survive. In fact it is a continuing path to Hell.

It appears that the position of “progressives” in this election is “anyone but a Republican.” That distills down to “electability.” Thus, progressives and liberals, “the agents of change” in the Democratic Party – in this election – are charged with nominating, Hillary, Obama or Edwards.

The relevance of the only truly “progressive” presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich is moot. It began when the corporate media trivialized his campaign; it was enabled with his exclusion from “Democratic Party” debates. And it bears underscoring that NOT ONE … NOT ONE of the then candidates, nor any of the three current ‘front-runners” publicly protested this act of political suppression, much less boycotted those disgraced debates. Yet “progressives” are continuing to dicker over which of these opportunists ought to get our support?

In the end the already fractionalized split in progressive support for Kucinich, Edwards or Obama was mercurially shattered when Kucinich suggested support for Obama during the Iowa caucus. (The best role for Kucinich is to continue to champion his platform, not his hopeless and flawed presidential crusade; continue to lead in the impeachment of Cheney and Bush.)

And I do understand the strategy of Lesser of Evilism. One can argue that even Hillary appears better than the socially regressive and war-imperialists McCain – Romney – Huckabee. Thus, it appears blasphemy – or politically incorrectness to challenge this premise – to be critical of these corporate controlled professionals.

However, I argue that this is not a “progressive” position. None of the above mentioned political managers chosen by the corporate state government’s “duopoly” will be “agents of change” any more than did the heir apparent to this strategy, Bill Clinton, while in office.

Clintonism. That has a true practical reality:

“…when Clinton took office, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. By the time he left office, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the governorships. By the numbers, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows….”

In terms of being an “agent of change, (Clinton was to)

“argue inside the Democratic Party that the liberal orthodoxies of the New Deal and the Great Society, as well as the culture of the anti-war and civil rights movements, had become excessive and inflexible. Not only were Democratic attitudes toward government electorally problematic, Clinton argued; they were just plain wrong for the time.” David Morris, AlterNet. Posted January 7, 2008.

Or as said by that last triumphant Democratic Party corporate state Clinton president, “The era of big government is over.” What he really meant was that it was time that the Democratic Party of the people was dead.

From NAFTA to the destruction of the welfare safety net, to The Telecommunications Act of 1996, to the Financial Services Modernization Act and not lastly, Clinton’s authorization to use depleted uranium weapons in Kosovo, indicate his true legacy and that of his “two for one” partner Hillary.

As for Hillary, her list of corporate state contributors, lobbyists and donors are longer than space permits. As for her foreign policy (aside from her not so subtle version of McCain’s Thousand Year Occupation of Iraq,) her chief foreign policy consultant

“is Madeliene Albright — the diplomat who, when asked on “60 Minutes” if she thought the 500,000 Iraqi children who died under the U.S.-led sanctions (during the Clinton years) was worth it, answered: “We think the price was worth it.”’ (www.alternet.org.)

Obama – then Edwards – then Hillary: Progress is not a color or a sex.

I argue that changing this government from the current, corporate controlled state
is the only important issue facing us since the United States defeated the nation of the Confederate States of America and participated in the defeat of world-wide German and Japanese fascism. Given the prima facie track record and current domestic and foreign policy positions of Obama and Edwards and their corporate donor lists, it is clear that only the bought and paid for corporate media call these political managers “agents of change.” The silliness of declaring “progress” in the form of sex or color is akin to likening progress to Margaret Thatcher and Mayor Marion Berry.

Nor can these Pols be considered agents of “the status quo.” There can be no “status quo” in a world in the midst of the current and coming social, political and environmental upheaval. There will either be progress or the last attempt by a white, ruling class to create a world order under the rubric of Globalization, corporate state militarism and its mutants, i.e., “the People’s Republic of China.”

Perspective:

To think only of what’s good for “America” however is just pure racist, class Selfishism. It is important to step back from this nation-corporate-centric election and look at the US from down under and from abroad. I believe the fate of the world lies in the balance. And the fate of the world has never been more endangered than today:

The levels of starvation and genocide; human exploitation and theft of the people’s wealth has never been greater in the history of the world. No matter how bad was the conquer-and-exploitation of peoples and nations throughout the stages of history, nothing is comparable to that after Columbus and the rise of the European and American regimes. Until this day, those two forces, now along with the rise of the “communist capitalist state” of China, now rule the world. The result can only be glimpsed:

Unlike any other the continent of Africa is fractured, awash in European history’s rape, reconstituted artificially under colonialism and neo-colonialism, when Europe withdrew, and the set-up of puppets states and governments and continues as the preyed upon victim of the new imperialism called “globalization.

Russia is reverting to a pseudo-capitalist dictatorship; the middle East is a Machiavellian nightmare: from the contrived State of Israel and the despotic oppression of the Palestinians and the murder of Lebanon; the wholesale theft of the people’s riches in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai under despotic monarchies and puppets of Britain and the US; the new terror state of Pakistan, the rising capitalist corporate state dictatorship of India; the long and tortured murder of the central and south American peoples. It is not necessary for me to state the data. All the recipients of this missive are familiar enough with the conditions generally described here.

All require thought and perspective when looking at this new class of corporate managers whose primary task will be to try to keep the white people of America happy with the spoils the corporate state steals from the underdeveloped world. Like George W. Bush, they will do so in the name of the “American way of life,” its illusory “democracy,” and its inalienable right to pray to a God who the deluded believe can both watch one sparrow fall from the sky and manage Huckabee’s Christian presidential campaign simultaneously.

Thus it is left to us “progressives” and social activist “radicals” to set the standard for what are and are not “agents of change.” As it appears we are about to see the coronation of yet another Democratic Party bureaucratic manager, anther CEO for the nation.

Without the ability to enliven a mass movement for change, it is left to us to enunciate principles and act on them. It is both a politically principled act and one of individual existential choice. I believe in principles before personalities and the effort at spiritual progress and not perfection. In the end we are what we do, not what we say.

Without a living progressive “agent of change” to vote for, I suggest that we write-in either Michael Harrington or Dorothy Healey for President in the national election. In the state of South Carolina I suggest writing in Harriet Tubman or Robert Smalls. Then we can stop mourning Kucinich and organize.