START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

The Champions of the Ninety-Nine Percent


Society & Culture  (tags: activists, americans, culture, dishonesty, education, freedoms, government, law, media, police, politics, religion, rights, society )

Kit
- 1005 days ago - truth-out.org
Solomon is no political opportunist--he's been fighting for these values for decades and describes his approach to campaigning this way: "principle as strategy."



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kit B. (276)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 10:05 am

From the article by: by: Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation | Op-Ed, reprinted by Truthout

"The vision of Solomon, founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, is aligned with what is now so central to our political discussion and must remain so: action on jobs and income inequality; ending the wars and investing those resources at home; sane and fair taxes on the wealthy and Wall Street; protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; ending our dependence on fossil fuels and preventing catastrophic climate change.

Solomon is no political opportunist—he’s been fighting for these values for decades and describes his approach to campaigning this way: “principle as strategy.”

“I intend to stick with principles, what I believe and what I’m willing to fight for,” Solomon told Texas A&M journalism professor Robert Jensen. “The quest is not for heightened rhetoric, it’s for deeper meaning, with insistence on policies to match—economic populism, human rights, civil liberties, ending wars and working for social equity.”

Solomon understands the need to elect people at all levels of government who are truly in spirit and in sync with the grassroots progressive movement."
***************

We can give it all away, surrender or Fight On and Never Give and Never Give In. The choice is yours and mine.
 

William K. (328)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 10:49 am
Governing from principles is the core of "ethics". The only principles being used by our current leaders are "greed", "power" and "more".
 

lee e. (114)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 12:01 pm
Now I have to vote by principles as well - - thanks Kit - interesting
 

Terry King (109)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 12:06 pm
Not really germane to the conversation but... I made a donation and ordered the Englehardt book.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 3:46 pm
We can give it all away, surrender or Fight On and Never Give and Never Give In. The choice is yours and mine.
........................................................

And while we fight, we must remember to keep true to the vision of what we want to be.

Each of us is a creator. We can create out of the negative of what is or postulate, create, image in , that whch we want to be.

Keep your eye on the goal, not on that which we overcome.
 

Charlie L. (47)
Sunday December 18, 2011, 4:11 pm
Kit, I like what Solomon has to say about the need to elect people who are truly in sync with the grass roots movement. But hasn't just about every democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy pretended to care about the grass roots? Hasn't every one of them pretended to have principles that endeared them to those who desperately wanted to change our country for the better and were naive enough to believe in them? Consider how so many were hoodwinked by Obama and conned into believing he was going to close guantanamo. Now, nearly four years into his Presidency guantanamo is not only still in operation, but he is giving his support to the Indefinite Detention Act which renders the Bill of Rights about as worthless as a peice of used bathroom tissue. Only several Democrats and a few Republicans voted against this disgraceful peice of legislation which threatens to take away what few traces of freedom and democracy that still remain in America. According to conventional wisdom we tend to expect Republicans to vote for something that is repugnant to 99% of Americans, but when the majority of Democratic Senators vote for it too who does Solomon think we can put in as their replacements unless we elect people who are not affiliated with the Democratic Party? I am especially appalled that Democratic Senators such as Diane Feinstein (CA) Barbara Boxer (CA) and Sherrod Brown (OH) voted in favor of this assault on the Bill of Rights. It's hardly shocking that John McCain (AZ) or Jon Kyle (AZ) would vote for it.

If the Democratic Party is to ever be a party that truly represents 99% of Americans it is going to require a massive removal of the great majority of their current members in both the House and Senate. Personally, I believe a better solution would be for the small number of truly progressive Democrats like Dennis Kucinich to part ways with the Democratic Party and either declare themselves as independents like Bernie Sanders, join the Green Party or form a new party that really deserves the support of the 99%.

Please forgive my long rant, but I've never been more disillusioned with Democrats before now.
 

Val R. (243)
Monday December 19, 2011, 1:06 pm
Unfortunately - we need to forget who is on the ballot and all write in who we want - but since all elections are rigged really doesn't matter but still think that's what we need to do depending who is on the ballot - eventually something will make a difference.
 

Mary Donnelly (47)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 12:21 pm
Thanks Kit.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 2:46 pm
Sounds like principle is a single option if we want to survive.
 

Charlie L. (47)
Tuesday December 20, 2011, 9:23 pm
Myron, I do remember LBJ very well. Aside from his "Great Society" agenda I can't recall much about him that was progressive. What I remember most about LBJ is that he escalated the Vietnam War which was a tragic waste of human life and lacked the political courage to end America's involvement in the conflict. What we tend to accept as a lesser of two evils is not necessarily less evil. Is a politician a lesser evil if he pushes a progressive agenda during his campaign but ends up siding with his adversaries on nearly every issue? Is he a lesser evil if he seldom backs his talk with action. We need leaders who are more than mere eloquent speakers. Most Republicans are selfish, greedy, dishonest and corrupt and deserving of just about every negative label you can think of. But as hard as it is to say anything positive about them I have to say that they tend to be more honest about where they stand on many issues. You don't have to speculate on what they will do, you know what to expect from them. Of course after nearly four years with Barack Obama in the top job I guess we know more about what to expect him to do....placate and coddle the righties at all costs. And since we have the majority of supposedly less evil Democrats who voted for the Indefinite Detention Act it should be clear to anyone who really cares what we can expect from them. Passage of this horrible peice of legislation should be a sign of alarm to anyone who has ever thought of the United States as the land of the free.
 

John C. (81)
Wednesday December 21, 2011, 3:45 am
I think a great deal of the problems we face today as a nation have their root in public complacency.
I fear few of us could refuse the temptations offered by an economic feudalism that we call democracy today if it were us that were in office.
Principles are worthless when we don't live by them. Until we do AND run for office ourselves no change will take place for the better.
 

Lynn Squance (232)
Thursday December 22, 2011, 2:18 am
Katrina vanden Heuvel, Washington Post --- ". . . These candidates will campaign on positions that have widespread support. . . they look for candidates who will make government accountable to citizens, not contributors. But truly populist candidates face harsh obstacles. Opponents will be well funded; the right-wing media and message machine will have a powerful voice. Voters not only have to be reached, they have to be persuaded to overcome their cynicism about politicians in general."

Why is it that in the Middle East and North Africa, those demanding change to existing institutions were hoping for peaceful change but ready for violence? Is it a cultural propensity to violence in short order if change doesn’t happen now? Or is it a real thirst for meaningful change --- a thirst to be rid of tyrannical leaders, a thirst for more say in government, a thirst for freedom, a thirst for greater equality, a thirst for a better life for their children?

And in North America, specifically the US, are people more accustomed to the outward vestiges of freedom that they take a more measured approach to demanding change? It seems that some of the issues are similar --- leadership, more say in government, greater equality, a sustainable life for their children and grandchildren. But why the differences in approach? Or is it that in North America, in slowly losing something that we have, our candle burns a little slower and we don’t recognise it for what it is? Eventually the candle will burn out and then what? Will North Americans resort to violence as has happened in the Middle East and North Africa? Will the same happen in Europe? in Australia? in the Far East?

Just some questions. But I do believe that voters have to overcome their complacency if any change is really to happen.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.