Sean Fenley

Sean Fenley
Birthday
May 04
Bio
Sean Fenley is an independent progressive, who would like to see some sanity brought to the creation and implementation of current and future, US military, economic, foreign and domestic policies. He has been published by a number of websites, and publications throughout the alternative media.

MY RECENT POSTS

Sean Fenley's Links

Salon.com
JANUARY 7, 2013 3:42PM

New Deal to Challenge the Duopoly

Rate: 2 Flag

The New Deal Party, I think, is a great idea for the left to seize upon. With so much of the Democrats/Democratic Party having gone DLC/Wall Street, the time is now more than ever for a third party. Austerity ghouls, and “deficit hawks” — adherents of the valueless “philosophies” of the billionaire vulture Peter G. Peterson — are rife in today’s Democratic Party. There are already a laundry list of potential third parties, of course, who have not gained massive traction. Much sweat, virtuous intent, and great determination; in fact, was devoted to many of these praiseworthy efforts. And so there’s no guarantee that a New Deal Party would gain traction either. Moreover, the venomous barriers erected by the temerity of the two dictatorial parties, do not make it simple for the emergence of any viable competitor/competition. The free market is not at work at all in the American political strata.

Seizing upon an American historical milestone was a masterstroke though, by the ordinarily exceedingly daft Tea Party riffraff/rabble. And a future Congress consisting of the Deep South party — the Republicans — and the national parties: the Democrats and the New Dealers is a fine vision, I think. But as I’ve said the graveyard of comers to do battle with the undemocratic duopoly were (and still are) multifarious, eclectic and varied, indeed. And few plots, wreaths, flowers, and sweet items of consecrated memorabilia are prized to even remember them.

However, with Obama having floated two “grand” deals in recent history to do away with — should-be untouchable — treasured New Deal initiatives/programs, will the time ever be riper for a New Deal challenge to this deceitful president? And not only Obama, of course, but other DLCers, and anti-New Deal flunkies within our own dear leader’s government? The time may, in fact, be at an “even riper” point in the near future — or actually probably more appropriately stated as further rotted — considering that the moment may be too late for important elements of the bare bones American safety net, to continually sputter on in existence. Without which literally massive deaths, advanced squalor in many circles, and a deep hit to the national psyche/collective consciousness will be the mortal injuries of such short-sighted, cretinistic, and inartful maneuvering. Maneuvering that is bizarrely viewed as “pragmatic”, and “good governance” by Beltway elites, that exist within a sordid milieu of  “political power players” in the nation’s capital.

So, as I say, carpe diem progressives! Obama’s axe is sharpening to do the bidding of virulent rapscallions — like the contemptible ilk of Peter G. Peterson, to irreparably harm this great union of America. Moreover, without urgent action, it will be Obama and the Democratic Party who are given culpability for it. When although many of them are not saints, they are not of the variety of tax evading CEOs, and hook-or-by-crook multi-gazillionaires, who are pushing these: foul, retrograde and distinctly injurious policies, initiatives and programs.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Great idea..... but a dead end. Trying to bring another party into the race - already fixed - would be like trying to bring a high powered speed-boat into a canoe race. I just ain't gonna happen. If it could happen, it would already have happened.

Good luck, though!
;-)
R
.
Sky,
I wonder the NDP has disappointed you greatly -- is that correct to assume?
Great idea...split the progressive vote among two parties so the conservatives can unite as Republicans and grasp victory from the jaws of defeat.

No wonder the right has such scorn for the left! The left deserves every bit of it.
Frank the apparatchik weighs in! Thanks for the anticipated response, my good man Frank!
a nation in mental chains will not discover freedom, and party politics is not an expression of democracy. if the limit of your imagination is a new fairy godmother party, you haven't grasped the depth of the problem. people who will submit to rule by others will be ruled, and the rulers won't be fairy godmothers.
The Teabaggers used the stimulus Al for their reactionary thrust. We should use a line in the sand, somewhere on how much of a mixed economy/social democracy that we are (or are not) to develop something kind of similar.

The Tea Party never became a real party, as I much as I dislike them -- I think that they are still influencing the Rethugs today. So as to whether the New Deal Party is a real political party, or something altogether different is not that critical to me.
I can visualize all the Wall Street bankers rubbing their hands at a bunch of splinter progressive 3rd parties duking it out. On the liberal/progressive end of the spectrum, the Green Party probably has the largest public profile, in terms of grassroots support in 80-85% of states (essential for making sure your candidate even gets on the ballot), fundraising and media presence.

I assume the founders of the New Deal Party have their reasons for not supporting Jill Stein's efforts to revitalize the Green Party at the local, state and national level. I would be curious to know what they are.
Sean,
Man you've just gotta get away from this business of assuming things that you've no good reason to assume. Most people get information before they assume anything.

You think well when you actually think. But making silly assumptions is going to chew you up like it does Robert. Lear about "them other guys" don't assume anything. You can make proper plans with knowledge - you can't do a damn thing worthwhile with assumptions unless they are well grounded.

;-)
.
I think I'm not picking up on your humor well Sky. You are kidding with me right?

I'm assuming you're being humorous, lol.
Sean,

Your response to my comment was......

"""Sky,
I wonder the NDP has disappointed you greatly -- is that correct to assume?"""

My response back was to tell you not to be so hasty at making "assumptions" that you can't back-up with solid info to support.

I don't recall making any comments about the NDP at all. You have nothing on which to base any assumption about me liking them or not liking them.

However, if you'd like to know what I think of them - and why - I'd be happy to fill you in.

Just to clarify my political position: I do not see that either the traditional "left" or the traditional "right" have anything good to offer to a society, given that the society in question has any desire to be a democracy. Both are vertically oriented with all the power of decision making at the top or in the layers immediately under the top.

This is not to say that either or both do not have some good talking points. But I've lived long enough and been politically active enough (50+ years) to have seen a multitude of governments formed by both sides. None have "worked" out any better than the other for the people under them.

You might do yourself a great favour if you paid a bit more attention to al loomis. He is absolutely correct in his oft stated opinion that democracy is a participatory thing; not one where you hand over the mastery of all citizens to any small group of "'representatives." You can see where that leads - just look at the around you.

As long as people don't and won't establish a system where all competent adults play a serious role in managing that society, then you will not have a democracy because democracy does NOT arrive in the basket of a political party.

Of course, if democracy means little to you, then you can continue on happily being led back and forth across the political spectrum like good little sheeple, while bleating about how "free" you are to choose between two political concepts while not even giving a thought to other options available to you.

Best to you in your journey...... ;-)
.
It may have been a poorly worded question... I was just asking your opinion on the NDP. I guess I should have just asked what you thought of the NDP.

I don't buy into the left/right divide criticisms that I've seen.

If you want to deepen democracy the closest to my knowledge of it in the West were the Paris commune and the Spanish CNT. Anarcho-syndicalism, council communism and the like, don't have mass traction much of anywhere at this point.

I actually think neo-tribalist folks have some good points, I'm certainly not a card-carrying member of that camp, but I like some of their thinking.

I think Scandinavian social democracy is the highest form of massive organization (by that I mean post-tribal humanity, although uncontacted tribes, and indigenous folks still following their traditions do still exist today -- so perhaps they should be considered the high form of humanity at the present).

My general view on the political process is corruption is cyclical -- at best actually. Look at some third world countries and how long they have been corrupt/corrupted (which is, of course, not free of a Western hand). I think we had a major miscommunication here, if not I guess I've angered you over a difference of opinion.

I thought UncleChri was actually quasi-civil so I'm sorry that things have taken this turn with us.

I like Al, I welcome his comments to my posts. I don't always fully grasp what he's saying. I think his heart is in the right place.
Sean,
Yes. I think you're right about a mis-communication. I have no animosity towards you. I detest UncleChri, and usually don't even bother to comment on his blather. He's from outer space somewhere; or at the very least hasn't been living in the same western nations that I've lived in for a good long time.

Al is hard to dig into. When I first came across his comments, I had to ask him repeatedly what on earth he was talking about. But as time went on and I got to understand his position, it became a lot easier to understand his comments.

If I have it right, he, like me, doesn't think that democracy can come about through political parties, councils, a pyramidally shaped social structure, or by giving responsibility and authority to "representatives". Again, like me, I think he is of the opinion that all members of society ought to be prepared to take on responsibility for how that society is managed, as participants in that management.

I doubt that he envisions the same sort of social structure that I do but just that he sees that this Pyramid of power that we presently employ is unworkable, puts his thinking light years ahead of those still being political party pets and getting their shit in a knot over "them evil others."

In the history of mankind as we understand it to be, it seems that we've tried a lot of things. We've tried having kings, emperors, dictators, socialism, communism, anarchy, and a whole lot of things. But in most of them we retained capitalism, of one form or another as our economic model.

For a few, such as the old polynesians and perhaps the North and south American, and some Africans, capitalism did not take hold. Some of those societies even were so different from capitalism that if you expressed a liking for something, it was given to you. Others had a day each year where everyone gave away everything they owned.

I mention all this to point out that there are many possible social and economic systems available to us. We do NOT have to lock ourselves in to the present predatory greed form of capitalism.

Nor do we need to lock in to some form of top-heavy, government - the state - is all, form of forced communal or communist society. There is more - much more - in the gamut of possible models than the two, which are always being looked at as "our only options" these days. Everything is really NOT all about "the left" and "the right".

Mankind is at a crossroads. We can see, if we look, that our present social system, which doesn't even have a name, is dominated by our economic system to the point where we are accepting economic principles as social ones! A serious mistake.

Down that road is only a society where nothing has value except money. Our present society is far enough along that road for us to see what a disaster that is! Can you imagine it?!! - The richest societies in the world, have large percentages of their citizens going to bed hungry most nights. What the hell do we think we're doing? We have the knowledge, the wealth, the technology, and the ability to do better than this - much better than this.

I am amazed that so few people think that we should.....
.
I've glad we were able to patch that up Sky. Another success!

In your newest comment I mean!