Quibbles and Bits, Politicus Interruptus edition

Let's just get right to the main course...

--> A recent episode of Abby Martin's The Empire Files gave what I felt was perhaps one of the most cogent, most cohesive arguments made against a Hillary Clinton presidency.   Her warmongering and overall neoconservative foreign policy are called out, along with her fiscal corruption (The Clinton Foundation) and her entrenchment in the banking and media elite.   To vote for her, especially in fear of T-Rump getting anywhere near the Oval Office, is to feed the corrupt two-party system which feeds either the .1% (the Republicans), or the top 10% (the Democrats - Thomas Frank's most recent tome illustrates this very well).

   So - .1% and the top 10% - who is left to represent everybody else?  The Democrats count on the idea that since Big Labor has been rendered completely impotent, along with the Education and Media establishments having been completely infiltrated and taken over by the Right Wing, where else can the "rest of the rubes" go?  There, then, is the Billion Dollar Question. 

--> An increasing volume of talk has been occurring over the last several months, especially on the left, about the possibility of forming a third political party should Bernie Sanders not win the Democratic nod.   I'm still fighting for Bernie (and will NOT, under ANY circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton), but the odds are greater than 50% that because of a rigged primary process, an in-the-pocket Main Stream Media, and bottomless access to corporate and billionaire cash, Hillary Clinton will likely be installed as the Democratic standard bearer - and Bernie will, at the appointed time at the Convention after all of the expected convulsions, wind up supporting her.   

I can tell you that I won't - regardless of what Bernie does.   This movement isn't about Bernie - it's about US.   

--> The pundit class in this country, including many of those on the left who I respect a great deal, will wax voluminously about the "fool's errand" that they feel is the formation of an alternative political party.   They will tell you that it's effect will be to "split the vote", and take progressive votes away from the "progressive" Democratic standard-bearer.   They point to Ralph Nader in 2000 as a lesson in why this is not a proper course of action to take, since it supposedly took votes away from Gore.   They say, work within the Democratic Party, with it's great and wonderful infrastructure, and fight like hell for the standard bearers there. 

All of which is pure bullshit. 

First, let's take a look at the "split the vote" argument.   This presumes several things: 1) that the Democratic Party is the home of progressive policies, politics, and politicians; 2) that the party is always less of a threat than the Republicans; and 3)that truly progressive policies and people are welcome in the supposedly "big tent" of the Democratic Party.    Yes, there are a few true progressive in the Senate and Congress:  Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson come to mind.   But look at what happened to Dennis Kucinich - his district was redrawn specifically to get rid of him in Congress.   Look what is happening to Alan Grayson - Obama endorses his primary opponent (corporatist Patrick Murphy), and Harry Reid has been throwing shade at him since he started his Senate campaign.   Also, look at the long roll call of DINOs past and present: Blanche Lincoln, the Clintons, Ben Nelson, Heath Shuler, and on, and on, and on.   This is what a "big tent" gets you - a largely unprincipled group more enticed to look out for #1 than the rest of us - because that's where the money takes them (and us).   It's been said, also, that "it takes a Democrat" to enact the Republican's worst policies.   Boy, ain't that true: many of Clinton's and Obama's legislative accomplishments (NAFTA, for starters), TPP fast-track, parts of Obamacare (such as the missing public option), the constant drone strikes in the Middle East, and an arms-length list of neoconservative and Friedmanist policies, originating largely from the backsides of Republicans and lobbyists, gain the support of the Democrats and therefore, are made "acceptable" by the masses:  bipartisanship, after all.   

Next, there's Ralph Nader, and his continued vilification by the Democratic Party and figures like Jimmy Carter and Randi Rhodes.   I hate to break it to you all - but Gore losing in 2000 was NOT Ralph Nader's fault:

--> There were several other candidates on the Florida ballot for the 2000 Presidential bid, most of them gaining more than enough votes to cover the 537 vote deficit for Gore; 

--> One year later, a recount was done in the disputed Florida counties, and it was discovered that Gore won those counties - and thus, the 2000 Election; 

--> The recounts in 2000 were halted by the Supreme Court, who issued a one-case non-precedent-setting decision stating that a further recount would cause harm to Bush.  Thus, the counts ceased, and Bush II was installed.   

The Election of 2000 was STOLEN BY JUDICIAL FIAT.   It had NOTHING to do with Ralph Nader, who was within his rights as a citizen to run for whatever office he wants, however he wants.   

Finally, there's the "infrastructure" of the Democratic Party.   How do you think that great and wonderful infrastructure got there?   With CORPORATE CASH.   The same CORPORATE CASH that built the Republicans' infrastructure.   A truly progressive message and candidates are, by nature, hostile to corporate and banking interests.  If the progressives were to succeed in going in and "taking that sucker over" (as Thom Hartmann would advocate), then what's going to happen to that infrastructure?   That's right.   Bye bye.   

So we need an alternative party.   What to do?   

That's a discussion for later.    

The Party's Over...

...for me, at least.  

(And I know it's been a while since my last post - sorry 'bout that.  I haven't fallen off of the cliff yet.)

I've been following the Clinton-Sanders primary battle over the last several months with great interest - perhaps more than is good for my health, at least from a blood-pressure standpoint.    To this, I have the following observations:

Quibbles and Bits, Iowa Zoo Feed and Chum Edition

More material for mastication and matriculation, courtesy of your not-so-humble-and-obedient zookeeper.

--> The Iowa Caucuses are not-quite-history, with HRC shouting to the rooftops that she won and Bernie saying much of the same thing.   The truth is, the caucuses ended in a virtual tie.   MSN-BS and the rest are trumpeting to the Milky Way that HRC won the night.    But Bernie, with the near-complete-mass-media-shutout and disparaging by the establishment pundit class, and far more limited campaign cash war chest, still managed to pull even with The Anointed and Chosen One.   This fact not only says a lot about the legitimacy of Bernie Sanders as a Presidential candidate, but it also highlights The Chosen One's weaknesses.

     Truth be told, if HRC was an actual progressive rather than the paper tiger she and her husband are (and were), and actually pushed for single payor health coverage rather than disparaging it, then she would have won Iowa in a cakewalk.    But, that's a rhetorical bridge-too-far for her, as she would offend the health care industry donors on which she depends on for campaign cash.    Personally, I think that the increasing irritation she is having with the Sanders campaign and supporters, is that Bernie is forcing her into a rhetorical "box".    She is now being forced to write rhetorical checks which she knows will bounce, assuming she wins the White House (no guarantee by any stretch.)  I can bet that if the primary campaigns drag on, then there will be noises from The Chosen One's camp for Bernie to stop "dividing the party" and unite behind Hillary.    I say to Bernie and his supporters: don't.   Take this all the way to the convention if you can.   Force the Democratic machinery to determine the nominee, and thus expose how undemocratic the "Democratic Party" really is.   Then, the farce will be on full display, in full monty, for all to see.   Crown on the head, but birthday suit underneath. 

--> Martin O'Malley suspended his campaign upon the end of the Caucuses.    He only garnered 1/2 of 1 percent of the vote, so no surprise.   It's been reported that his supporters will likely gravitate toward Sanders - wise choice, if you ask me. 

--> As you may have seen on my Facebook page, I'm a Bernie-Or-Buster.    Under NO circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton.    There are many reasons for this, the biggest of which is that the corporate ownership of government has to end.    Now.    As sick as this may sound, and I hope that this doesn't come to pass, but what it may take to shake this grip is four years of a sicko like a Trump or Cruz at the helm of the country.   Things may have to get SO bad, where a significant-enough percentage of the country is experiencing third-world conditions (like Flint, Michigan and Camden, New Jersey), that a critical mass of people will actually rise up and demand change.    It's been a well-told story in history that when the gap between rich and poor gets wide enough that you have revolution.   I hope to God that four years of Repub rule doesn't happen.  I hope I'm wrong.   I don't want to see people suffer.   But, until the country experiences a genuine, deep, painful crisis, I don't see how real, sustained change will be possible.    It took the Great Depression to elect FDR.    It may take something similar (or worse) this time around, as well.  

     And the current, corporate-friendly path is not sustainable and not sufficient.   It won't do.   So no HRC or any Corporate "Democrat" for me.   Now, or ever.   

Outside the Sporting Life and Maintaining Grace Under Pressure

     If one looks beyond the rah-rahs and the surface of the final scores and statistics of sporting events, there can be some important life lessons that can be learned from them.    How teams comport themselves, both individually and as a group, as well as how they perform in the face of adversity, can provide lessons for all of us.

     The latest example of this is the Cincinnati Bengals/Pittsburgh Steelers wild card playoff game, held earlier this evening.    This game will go down as perhaps one of the worst examples of a team, in this case the Bengals, allowing defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.   From all accounts and judging from having watched the final two minutes of the game, the Bengals have no one to blame but themselves.    The Bengals had a one-point lead going into the final two minutes when the collapse occurred in a bizarre series of events: a fumble by the Bengals running back deep in Steelers territory, and the Steelers being gifted thirty yards in penalties in the final minute due to two unnecessary roughness calls on the Bengals defense.   A long-shot field goal attempt became, while not a chip-shot, certainly easier.   Those penalties were purely mental errors on the part of the Bengals - free yardage due to a lack of composure and focus in that crucial final minute.   The Steelers stayed focused, even in the face of a late deficit that could have ended their season.   Instead, largely because of their lack of focus and poise in the final minute, the Bengals are staying home.

     The life lesson here, is in the importance of maintaining ones focus, ones balance - even in the face of life's emotional highs and lows.   It's one of life's greatest challenges, and our emotional maturity (or emotional intelligence, as this term seems to apply to) is directly related to our ability to achieve this kind of control, the art of maintaining grace under pressure.    Entire areas of philosophy state mastery of our emotions as a central tenant - Buddhism is one of them.  Techniques such as meditation are employed in this pursuit.   I will be the first to admit that I claim no mastery of any of these aspects.   But, I see challenges as providing part of the value of life, and as seen above and in countless other areas of our lives, this challenge is an especially worthwhile one.   

It's Not Funny Anymore

Over the several months since Donald Trump entered his oversized hat into the Presidential race, many in the media, and I, have had plenty of fun as his expense.    The list of nicknames is long and legion: Tribblehead, T-Rump, The T-Rump Trumpet, The Walking Toupee, and on, and on, and so on.   His quirks, such as his propensity to refer to himself in the third person, his lavish personal tastes, and his oversized and over-bloated ego in general (manifest by his making DAMNED sure that his name appears on EVERYTHING he touches), have made him a media magnet.    Perhaps that is exactly how he got as far as he has in this election, still being the Republican front-runner.   He plays the media as if it were a Stradivarius, and at this writing, over 40 percent of Republican voters are dancing to his tune.     

Couldn't have Said It Better Myself

I saw bits and pieces of the Second Dem Debate the other night.   I'll let The Sane Progressive give you her take, as it pretty much matches mine...

Click Here for her Facebook page.  As you'll see, she is absolutely NO fan of Hillary - and increasingly, neither am I.  

Quibbles and Bits, Ozzie Bengazi and the Force of a Bullet in the Foot edition

The Bengazi Committee

I can understand how emotion can override reason, having been guilty of that mind crime many, many times in my life.   But if anyone wants a mass, real-life example of how Yosemite Sam-ridiculous this looks, check no further than the Bengazi Committee.   Hillary Clinton didn't need to expend much effort making the committee members look like the assclowns they are.   Just a little rhetorical and politcal jiu-jitsu, then stand back and watch the heads explode like thermite in the hands of the Mythbusters.   And what will be the ultimate result?  Free positive press and campaign ads for Hillary.   A Republican party with it's head and trunk tucked between it's legs.   And very likely, the final nail in the coffin of any legitimate challenge to Hillary in the primaries and the general election.

UPDATE 11/15 - This statement above is not to imply endorsement of Hillary Clinton - not in any way whatsoever.   See the post above as to why.    

Myths Bustin' Moves

Speaking of thermite and Mythbusters, it has just come to my attention that Jamie and Adam will be riding off into the sunset after next season.     Thirteen years of busting BS, from the confines of the Bay Area.   Through the format changes - semi-reality-documentary in the beginning, through the Build Team phase, up through today's slick production pieces - the boys have been able to keep the show fresh, interesting, and at times, hilariously funny.   They've always had an interactive element to the show, encouraging viewers to submit ideas and actually running with these ideas, often to classic effect.   I'm sure that the show will sustain a long run in syndication, having produced close to 300 episodes, and it's available on Hulu and iTunes.    Personally, I'd like to see Adam and Jamie bring back the Build Team (Tory/Grant/Kari, and perhaps Jessie Combs) for one more mega-myth-bust.   That would be satisfying.   

More to come, stay tuned...

Quibbles and Bits, Mental Masters of Debators Edition

More morsels and chewy fun-sized bits, guaranteed to go down with minimal effort.

The First Democratic Debate

I confess that I did not watch the debate "as it happened" - I only saw a few clips.   So I cannot judge performance or what was actually said.   I can, however, provide a view on the reactions I've been seeing on various media outlets and the Internet.

Here's my big gripe.  Virtually every poll taken immediately after the shindig showed Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly winning the debate, but the pundit class, down to the talking head, said Hillary "crushed" it, "smoked" it, and other semi-creative metaphors for winning the debate.  Now, a few days after the debate, I'm seeing what appears to be modified poll results showing how Hillary "won".    This should prove to anyone observing, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Big Media is actively trying to rig this election.    Jeb! and Hillary are the establishment choices, people who they can control.    Sanders is a wild card, complete with wild hair and wild hand gestures.    They won't be able to control things in DC under a Sanders presidency - something that even Ann Coulter recognized when, on her soul-home of Foxy News, she stated that "Hillary is the one we want to run against."   She's seeing a deja-vu situation here, and I actually agree with her.  

Another theory tossed around about the perceived "smooth ride" Hillary was expected to get and have faciliated by the DNC, is that the leadership of the DNC is predominantly women, who have a vested interested in putting a woman in the Oval Office.    This theory strikes me as, besides misogynistic, somewhat short-sighted and failing to see the big picture.    Hillary is the establishment candidate - she hobnobs with the banks and corporate America, goes to their garden parties, and for the most part, IS one of them.    Her funding sources are virtually the same as those for Jeb! and the other Republican puppets.  

Wither Democratic Underground? 

I used to be a semi-regular contributor to Democratic Underground.  At one time, I looked forward to seeing features such as the "Top 10 Conservative Idiots", and generally found the give-and-take enjoyable - at least in most of the threads in which I participated.    SInce well before Hillary announced her candidacy, however, I've seen an increasingly militancy regarding her campaign - and I use the word "militancy" judiciously in this case.    To some of the posters who embody this militancy, through insults, snark, quasi-personal attacks, treating anybody who doesn't tow their line as an enemy, or worse, threatening those with whom they disagree with TOS violation reports, this seems to be a sacred duty.  I'm going to name a couple of the biggest offenders here: VanillaRhapsody and Wyldwolf, I'm calling you out.   People like this, who I suspect are at the very least, campaign volunteers if not paid professionals working on behalf of the Clinton campaign or the DNC (they're synonymous these days), will trot out charts and "fact sheets" about Clinton's voting record ('NillaRap is notorious for this), and will tell people not in agreement with them that they are not "loyal Democrats", "left-leaning independents" (GASP!!!)  and other diatribes that question the offender's loyalty to the Democratic Party.   

I recall a post (I don't have the link right now), which explains some of this behavior.   The poster stated that it's "because we remember 1972" and the disunity of that campaign leading to the nomination of a well-meaning, brilliant, yet unprepared candidate - Senator George McGovern.   Remember:  this was over two decades prior to the creation of Foxy News, and look what the media machine and the Repubs were able to do to the Democratic candidates in that campaign.  When you get a chance, I recommend Googling not only McGovern, but also Edmund Muskie.   These men were driven right through the wringer with the bad press, innuendos, and in the case of Muskie, dirty tricks.   The landslide for Nixon was only a small part of the tragedy.   Another part is what this campaign did to these men, and those that supported them.    Even larger that those was the continued deaths in Vietnam, and what was to come two years later.   

So what is the logic here?  Here's my bet.   These people look at Sanders and see a rerun of McGovern.   They see a candidate who wears "socialism" like a badge when most of the country still has no real idea of what it is.   They see Hillary as tried and true, and somebody who has already had the opposition research done against her and has come out as the Democratic front-runner in 2016.  Many of them also see this as "her due" - given her career in public service.    Also, as with any cult of personality, they will see their favorite candidate through the lenses of what they want to see, rather than what is actually true.   She may have a lefty-leaning voting record as a Senator (in some things), but she's way too cozy with Wall Street and the Banks to be called any kind of progressive.  She's also a known hawk when it comes to foreign and military policy.   This "rose-colored glass" effect also exists with some Sanders supporters, who may be so focused on his economic message that they forget to see his stand on gun rights - which may be appropriate for a rural state like Vermont but not for the metropolitan areas like NYC and Los Angeles.    

So in short, I'm finding that Democratic Underground is becoming less and less hospitable to those of us who question Hillary's anointment.    The political operatives know the value of sites like DU and intend to leverage them to the hilt, so, my prediction is that they will pretty much take over DU and exile the "dissenters".    Fine.   I'll take my commentary to Facebook.   

Lives That Matter

     A few words about the recent events surrounding #blacklivesmatter and the controversy surrounding them – and if you possess a lighter skin tone, these words are especially for you:

>> By saying Black Lives Matter, nobody is saying that other lives don’t matter.    When people deface their signs by removing the “Black”, or by chanting “All Lives Matter”, the reaction I have is “DUH!”  These defacements and re-statements are dismissive, and miss the point of the message.   This is not a zero-sum game, with some lives mattering and some not – that’s part of the point of all of this. 

 

     Turn on the TV, or the radio.   Look at any number of the major supermarket “People” Magazine-inspired fish wrap rags, and check for the stories involving somebody’s murder, rape, or other tragedy.   If it’s a non-Black face, it will get far more coverage and fawning over than the same types of things happening to those with dark skin.   Remember Jon-Benet Ramsey?  Or Natalie Holloway? Or Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson and the ensuing circus?  This isn’t to discount what happened to them – murder is murder is murder.    But when the same thing happens to an African American, the tendency in our white supremacist culture has been to dismiss it, as something that happened “over there”, “to those people”, and to write it off as an expected event in a “poor”, “high-crime” (both code words for BLACK) neighborhood.  

>> Why go after Bernie Sanders, especially with his extensive record of work on behalf of civil rights issues (to the point of arrest)?   From what I’ve seen in Slate and other internet postings, when the two BLM activists co-opted the stage in Seattle a couple of weeks ago, the target was not Bernie Sanders.   It was the thousands of people drawn to the event.    Most of these people were light-skinned, and considered themselves progressive in their politics.   The point of it?  You can’t be a “progressive” and ignore the issue of racial inequality, while at the same time trumpet to the moon the issue of economic inequality.  They are intertwined, especially in American society.     I’m sure that this was not Bernie’s intent – the lesson here, from a political standpoint, is to include the movement from the outset of the campaign.   From what I’ve seen so far, he’s learning this lesson well, which just might be his ticket to the White House.  

>> Take another look at Chris Hedges’ recent works, especially Death of the Liberal Class.    What you’re seeing in these BLM actions can virtually be taken straight from Hedges’ work: civil disobedience, especially of the asymmetrical kind like what happened in Seattle.    So far, they are proving effective at shifting the national dialog, even in the seemingly messy way they are occurring. 

 

>> Why the urgency, and now?   What would you do if it was your son or daughter killed or injured at the hands of a cop?   Especially if that son or daughter was unarmed and posing no threat to that cop?  What if you look around and see the same thing happening to your neighbors ON A DAILY BASIS?  What if the media completely ignores you and dismisses you when these tragedies happen?  What if you’re keenly aware of your history and the history of this country in relationship to the ethnic group in which you are a part?  You reach a breaking point.     We’ve reached breaking points like this before:  the Watts Riots come to mind, the fire hoses drawn on protesters in the 1960s in the Deep South, and other violent actions perpetrated against peaceful protesters.    We’re at yet another breaking point now, and if this is not addressed, then Watts and Ferguson will be comparable only to cake walks.  

I’ll have much more to say on this in coming posts.   Stay tuned.  

Quibbles and Bits, Over the Hills and With the Shills edition

More chewy bites...

>>T-Rump was on full display in all his in-glory in the Repub shoutfest earlier this week.    Misogyny, narcissism, classism, bullshit-ism, insert-your-ism here.    And judging from the polling, the Repub rubes are eating it up like candy!    He’s an “outsider”, after all.   No – he came out and said that as a businessman, he contributed to whoever so he got what he wanted in legislation.   At least he’s honest.

>>Where is the Dem pushback to all of this?   The speculation on parts of the left wing is that the DNC is trying to set the table all nice and neat for Hillary.   Fewer debates, less chances for gaffes, fewer opportunities for the Bernie train to pick up steam.    This should be a genuine worry for the Hillary camp:  Bernie gets thousands of people per event at his stops, and those people volunteer and are enthusiastic about his candidacy.   I don’t hear about nearly that type of enthusiasm over in the Hills.   Any enthusiasm in her camp is likely happening behind the guarded gates and in the garden parties of the 1%.   They express it in $$ - which is, after all, speech – just ask the SCOTUS.

>>I have dubbed the DNC chair Debbie Weasleman-Shiltz.   She’s a classic DINO, and perhaps one of the most corrupt congress critters in Washington – which is saying a LOT.   She owes a lot to a lot of people.   She’s clearly in the Hillary camp, and judging from her clueless responses to Tweety regarding the Sanders campaign last week, shows as little understanding of Bernie’s appeal as Tweety does.    Or perhaps, she’s trying to plead ignorance in the same way a child puts his/her fingers in the ears whenever the pressure gets too much.   Either way, she’s a symptom and not a solution.   

Mas later.   

Being Frank about Clinton and Sanders

     Former New York representative Barney Frank had some choice words for those of us progressives who are supporting Bernie Sanders for President.    We’re hurting Clinton’s campaign.   We’re playing into the hands of the GOP.    Yadda.   Yadda.   Yadda.   

     On Facebook, where I initially saw this post, I stated that if Bernie really wanted to hurt the Democrats, he would have run as a 3^rd party or independent candidate.    He would do precisely what Donald T-Rump is threatening to do (and considering the ego on the T-Rump, I would not put it past him.)  But he ran as a Democrat, exactly so that he does not play the role of spoiler.  

     Let’s look at Frank’s  sentiments a bit deeper, however.    Since Bernie is running as a Dem for the reason I state above, why would he make such a statement?   For one, Sanders' increasing popularity, in large part because of his populist message and his reputation for backing up his words with deeds, is considered a threat to those that actually own and operate this country – people for whom Hillary shills for.    Thus, in order to maintain her admittedly sizable lead in the polls, she has to pivot to the left, stretching her triangulation skills to their breaking point.   Perhaps she is being forced to write rhetorical checks for which her actions, record, and personal philosophy will not be able to cash – she knows it, the Democratic corporate establishment knows it, and Barney Frank certainly knows it. 

     This episode is but one byproduct of the country creaking back toward the left side of the cultural pendulum.  We begin to see more and more of these outsider vs. insider battles.   The concern I have is whether or not the progressives have enough of a political backstop in order to sufficiently support their candidates on a national level.    Progressives are the outsiders in this equation, and have been throughout much of our nation’s history.   The money does not flow to progressives as it does with the establishment, being backed by businesses who crave stability as opposed to change.   Also, the institutions who formed the progressive base have largely been destroyed or rendered irrelevant – public education, labor unions, etc.  For these reasons, while I’ll continue to support Bernie, I honestly think that he will wind up serving as little more than a delivery person who supplies progressive votes to Hillary.  

     In order to create a more favorable environment for progressives to run and win on a national scale, we need to rebuild the progressive base on the local and state levels.   Seattle knew this – the $15 per hour minimum wage movement picked up quite a bit of steam after they passed their ordinance, led in large part by a new, openly Socialist city council member.   There are other localities who have extensive Progressive traditions, such as Santa Cruz and much of the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, TX, and others.   But they are comparatively few and far between, largely because the Republicans figured this lesson out decades ago.   Ever since Barry Goldwater was destroyed in the 1964 Presidential Election, there has been a concerted effort to load up city councils, school boards, county commissioner boards, and other local governmental bodies with loyal conservatives – a tactic that lead ultimately to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  

So what to do?

1.      Run progressive candidates on the state and local levels;

2.      Don’t depend on traditional media outlets to get the message out – rely on independent media, the Web, and good ol’ word of mouth;

3.      Think long term – the Repubs did this, the Progressives will need to do the same;

4.     Accept the fact that some of the changes that Progressives seek may not be realized in our individual lifetimes.   Remember that this isn’t about US as much as it is about OUR KIDS and future generations.   It’s a natural inclination for us to want our kids to have a better shot than we did – it’s only right that we continue holding that mindset.