Whiner/Aggressor Leadership Blues Rant

For the past 7 years or so, at least since the Clinton/Monica situation, liberals have heavily played the party of victim. Victims of the rightwing conspiracy to get Clinton. Now victims of a neocon cabal of zealots out to get us all, stealing elections, smashing towers, manipulating wars.

When victimhood is overdone - it can become a whine, and whiners lose public sympathy. It's become easy to label some as whiners simply because doing so gives excuse to ignore their plight, even if legitimate. A victim always has an aggressor.

While I believe there are elements in the government who would like to destroy liberties that we the people want to keep, I can't point to it as being solely a plot from an aggressive rightwing, neocon, Christian Zionist cabal. As far as I'm concerned, destroying the republic as we know it, is a two party ongoing multi-faceted effort, with more fake fronts than La Cosa Nostra in Palermo.

The democrats point to this malevolent neocon undercurrent controlling the Republican Right - so why does the "left" and/or Democrat party counter by investing in mediocre leadership, or no leaders at all? Look at Black leadership today. Anyone fired up by Jesse? There are traits I like about Jackson and issues I agree with him on, but the man knew long ago which side of the balcony his butter was standing on, he became an eloquent full-time activist and part-time whiner.

Obama? Charismatic, but he's not playing for the left. Ray "the cable guy" Nagin? Or how about Jack Ford, the Toledo mayor who felt Nazis had a right to march in a predominantly Black residential neighborhood shouting racial slurs and making ape noises? Which side of brilliant ideas sign his paycheck? Would he agree Nazis have the right to march in a residential Jewish neighborhood shouting slurs, making the sound of cash registers and ovens? Nazis – get to be the whiner, aggressor, and victim in one staged scene.

There's the New Black Panther Party, which I once considered too militant and they promptly told me I'm "an old gray-head, stuck in the old ways." Might need to reconsider militancy; dyed my hair though. Huey P. Newton says there is no new Black Panther party; Malik Shabazz says there is, and the ADL whines the NBPP is a "hate-mongering" group. Is that a new new tag for "uppity"? Everyone gets to be both victim/aggressor here.

Who might be considered progressive leaders, progressive alternatives? Ralph Nader? He's been around as long as Jesse and never lit a fire under any sizable movement. Congressionals such as Pelosi, Kennedy, Waters, Kucinich? Agreeable persons but no fire. (Note Hillary going from whiner to aggressor as she leans further toward the right.)

And for all the hype and whine on this Zionist/Jewish neocon cabal influencing US government policy – how come congressional pols aren't out here claiming they're worried about it? Since most of our representatives aren't concerned about a powerful cabal of Jewish insiders, maybe the whole notion is tinfoil. (Or maybe most pols need those AIPAC contributions, and the few who don't seem to make little political difference.)

Movements? The anti-war Cindy Sheehan? I admire her courage, appreciate her speech, empathize with her grief - but when she speaks, she whines. Her vocal timbre does not energize or activate. There are others with more power of presence. Plenty of anti-war vets who could've been chosen yet the "left" preferred to go with Sheehan. Movements have to be led by fiery inspirational word warriors. Sheehan comes off as meek, a victim. She may develop more leaderspeak with time but is there time? Pump up the volume because Ghandi and the flower children are dead. I know, MLK preached nonviolence – but it wasn't peaceful if you were on the receiving end of water hoses, dogs, baton, jail cell, church bombings, bullet or rope.

Where is the American labor movement? Who leads it? No Cesar Chavez or Eugene Debs. AFL-CIO speaks out against the war and State chapters hold rallies, but their acronym has become synonymous with liberals and liberals synonymous with social decay (according to the belligerent rightwing). Thanks to Reagan/Bush, decades of outsourcing, and Wal-Mart being risk-takers according to Senator Judd Gregg, union power vanished quicker than Jimmy Hoffa. Also, again thank the Gipper if you're a true believer, for the defeat of evil pinko empires and genuine leftist governments which began to disappear faster than the penis of a weightlifter on steroids.

Women's movement? There doesn't seem to be much good coming from feminists these days. A few old faces such as Steinam lecturing, in between publishing slick magazines of rehashed articles and ideas. Who would have thought feminism coming full circle would bump into Cosmo Helen Gurley Brown - how to please your man while putting out the abortion clinic fire. Now real American women strive to outplastic their surgeons and display testosterone asskicking skills in a Victoria's Secret bra. Not what I remember "women's lib" being all about. (I support liberated women; every girl should know how to assemble an AK or equivalent.)

Once this was a nation of firebrands and instigators, with people from all walks of life, races and creeds, willing to put their lives on the line to light a fire under fellow Americans.

It grows harder to distinguish the party from the rhetoric, as they wallow in the same globocorporate bed, committing the same crimes. Agreeing to wage and fund 2 wars, the Patriot Act, domestic snooping, confirming criminal nominations; what's to disagree on? Headstart and energy assistance for the poor?

Both parties launch small controlled and/or uninspired counter movements, contrive a base from contrived polling, publish phony announcements that things are going great, introduce look busy drivel legislation – raise their own salaries as the infrastructure crumbles and national poverty rises like water in the 9th ward. Both parties drive the sane and honest out of government as they meld into one big complaining aggressive politburo.