You are here

Government & Politics

Government Logo

Keith Knight | The Barack Boom /






Series | 2016 General Election Guide, Part 6: Has the Left Surrendered?

  • An independent left must never plead with Democratic leaders to be heard, as too many liberals have been wont to do. That way lies continued irrelevance – and continued contempt. The future left must be willing to say “no” to … Democrats, with all that the word “no” implies.
  • Chris Hedges | The Left Has Lost Its Nerve and Its Direction
  • Sixth in a Series

Richard Eskow, LA Progressive Evergreene Digest Editor's Note: To help our readers vote responsibly we are re-publishing as a stand-alone series those articles we think will help. These articles will appear frequently between now and the November 8 election. Watch for them in the Government & Politics section (and simultaneously in other sections) under the searchable title "2016 General Election Guide".


Sunday, 2 March, 2014 | Has the American left ceased to exist as a viable political force by surrendering its power to a corporatized Democratic Party? That’s the argument put forward by political scientist Adolph Reed Jr., first in an essay for Harper’s magazine and then in a televised follow-up interview with Bill Moyers.

Reed’s essay, “Nothing Left: The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals,” has a blunt message which might be summarized as follows: The fault, dear liberals, lies not in our political stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. It’s not necessarily a new thought, but it packs a punch, especially as Reed has organized and expressed it.

Richard Eskow is a former executive with experience in health care, benefits, and risk management, finance, and information technology. He is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and hosts The Breakdown, which is broadcast on We Act Radio in Washington DC.

Full story … 

Previously in the 2016 General Election Guide:


Series | Presidency 2016, Part 9: Socialist Party USA

  • Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik (California), Presidential Nominee
  • Angela Walker (Wisconsin), Vice Presidential Nominee
  • The Socialist Party strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own  control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups.;  where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible... From Socialist Party USA Statement of Principles "Socialism As Radical Democracy" read the full document 
  • Ninth in a series

Socialist Party - USA We Are

Every four years, the Democratic and Republican parties meet in convention to adopt a national platform. With memberships ranging from Joseph Lieberman to Elizabeth Warren, and from John McCain to Rand Paul, it's not surprising that their national platforms end up as vague attempts at being “all things to all people.” Although their platforms often say little while maintaining an image of mutual hostility, those two parties are united on fundamentals.

They are united in upholding a system euphemistically called “free enterprise,” in which a relative handful of people control the largest corporations in America and in the world, thereby wielding enormous economic and political power and subverting the functioning of political democracy.

Full story … 

Related: Now you can follow Evergreene Digest on Twitter.




From the Archives | Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon.

Jordan Michael Smith, Boston Globe Yes We Expect 1% of Our Subscribers to Donate

Frankly it’s a bit of a miracle that we can provide service to nearly a million visitors per month with only one percent of our subscribers responding to the donation requests. Without 1% contributing you can rest well assured we will not be able to continue.

A reasonable contribution--the equivalent of a cafe latte a month--using the donation button above—from time to time is all it takes.

Dave & the Crew illustration by lesley becker/globe staff

October 19, 2014 | The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Jordan Michael Smith is a contributing writer at Salon and The Christian Science Monitor.

Full story …