The Coming Storm

The Real Harm in the Lesser-Evil Approach “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”  This insight by Albert Einstein reminds us that in life, certain choices and actions can undermine goals we ostensibly hold dear.  But when it comes to elections, such reasoning is suppressed.  Whenever the quadrennial presidential horse race heats up, spokespersons for the liberal left outdo each other rationalizing why “responsible” opponents of the status quo must buck up, be “practical” and, above all, never stray from the narrow, contrived choice allotted to us by those currently pulling the strings. Each race is different.  Sometimes, progressives will argue that the Democratic candidate is so meritorious that he/she has earned our support outright, based on the balance sheet of the candidate’s actual efforts and accomplishments.  Remarkably, there are those who try to make this case for Barack Obama today—a position that can only be defended if the facts are not

In a classically hilarious cartoon , Bugs Bunny gets Daffy Duck twisted in logical knots, arguing whether Elmer Fudd should shoot the duck now, or wait until he gets home—a wretched choice if ever there was one.  Phony debates are a bit like that.  In this election season, Americans are given a “choice”: shoot us now or shoot us later.  There is no other imaginable possibility.  Or is there?  Cutting through the airwaves so replete with empty words and false choices, we present part two of the real debate: socialist, Sydney Solidarity, representing the interests of working people and the 99%, vs. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney of the Democratic and Republican parties, standing up for corporate America and the 1%. The second presidential debate took place October 16, moderated by Candy Crowley of CNN.  The questions, screened in advance, were posed by audience members.  Below are Solidarity’s responses to each of the debate questions. A transcript of the actual, more restri

As everyone knows, the Democratic and Republican parties have limited and controlled the political narrative for generations.  In this way, they hope to convince people that the only “realistic” choice is between one or another party of the 1%.  At no time is this political censorship more pronounced than during the presidential election season.  However, through the magic of the Internet, we bring you the real debate: the debate between socialist candidate, Sydney Solidarity, representing the interests of working people—the 99%—versus the stale, stilted defense of the status quo as presented by the two corporate parties. The first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign took place October 3, moderated by Jim Lehrer.  Below are Solidarity’s responses to each of the debate questions.  Jim Lehrer’s comments are edited for flow. A transcript of the actual, limited debate between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney can be found here . *   *   * Jim Lehrer: Let's start the eco

The following debate was conducted in writing, from September 29 to October 5, 2012,   by Mark Linsey and Bruce Lesnick.  The debate was triggered by the publication of This Progressive Will not Vote For Obama , by Carol Dansereau, which should be read first to fully appreciate the context. Mark Linsey is a liberal activist and Obama supporter. Bruce Lesnick is a socialist and long-time political activist.                                     *  *  * Mark Linsey: As a progressive, I both like and don't like [Dansereau’s] essay because I share [her] point of view but not [her] conclusion. I find it interesting and provocative but unhelpful. [She] bring[s] up many different issues which are very important and truly do deserve public discourse. Where [she] lose[s] me is the notion that somehow not voting is the way out or a good thing that will change the course we are on. This essay has no chance in my opinion of making what you and I both agree on should happen,