Friday, August 21, 2009
Famed trend forecaster Gerald Celente is predicting that a third party candidate will be elected President in 2012. (If you don't know who Celente is, read the postscript below.)
Is he right?
Well, some of the most widely-read liberal writers are saying that progressives are fed up with the Democratic party, and feel that they have been tricked and ripped off by the Democratic leaders.
As Glenn Greenwald writes:
What About the Right?
In a superb post the other day, Digby recounted what fueled the Naderite movement in 2000 and warns, presciently I think, that the willingness of Obama/Emanuel so blatantly to disappoint those to whom they promised so much (especially young and first-time voters who were most vulnerable to Obama's transformative fairy dust) will lead them either to support a third party or turn off from politics altogether:On most fronts that matter -- civil liberties, national security, economic policy, servitude to corporate interests, even rising opposition to Obama's long-promised escalation of the war in Afghanistan -- that defines rather clearly what the Obama/Emanuel approach has been thus far.
Rahm Emanuel believes that the key to Democratic success is a coalition in which Blue Dogs and corporate lackeys mitigate progressive change on behalf of the moneyed interests which he believes the political system must serve. Regardless of his malevolent view of how the political system should work, on a political level, I think he's living in the past. . . .
But on a political level, the left has been betrayed over and over again on the things that matter to us the most. The village is pleased, I'm sure. But the Democratic party only needs to look back eight short years to see just how destructive it is to constantly tell their left flank to go fuck themselves. . . .
At the time [in 2000] nobody believed that an incumbent Vice President in a roaring economy would have a race so close that the Republicans could steal it. But we know differently now don't we? And you would think that the Democratic establishment would also know that because of that, it may not be a good idea to alienate the left to the point where they become apathetic or even well... you know. It can happen. It did happen. Why the Democrats persist in believing that it can't happen again is beyond me. . . .
Obama mobilized a whole lot of young people who have great expectations and disappointing them could lead to all sorts of unpleasant results. Success is about more than simply buying off some congressional liberals or pleasing the village. It's worth remembering that a third party run from the left is what created the conditions for eight long years of Republican governance ...
After 2000, what is it going to take for the Democrats to realize that constantly using their base as a doormat is not a good idea? It only takes a few defections or enough people staying home to make a difference. And there are people on the left who have proven they're willing to do it. The Democrats are playing with fire if they think they don't have to deliver anything at all to their liberal base --- and abandoning the public option, particularly in light of what we already know about the bailouts and the side deals, may be what breaks the bond.
It's really not too much to ask that they deliver at least one thing the left demands, it really isn't. And it's not going to take much more of this before their young base starts looking around for someone to deliver the hope and change they were promised.
The Washington Examiner writes:
The fact that just doesn't register with Washington GOP establishmentarians is that the Tea Party Protests seen around the country in April were aimed as much against them as they were against the tax and spending policies of Obama and the Democratic Congress.There are millions of libertarians and traditional conservatives (or "paleo-conservatives", in contrast to Neo-conservatives) in the U.S. who are very unhappy with the direction the Republican party has taken in recent years.
There are many millions of liberals and conservatives who have become disgusted by their parties and have started judging candidates based upon what they are actually doing.
As just one example, there are millions of Americans who would support either Ron Paul as president and Dennis Kucinich as vice president or the other away around. Why? Both challenge the status quo, and have proposed legislation which will actually help the American people.
Based on the above trends, I believe that Calente could be right. A third-party candidate could win in 2012.
Postscript: Here's what people have said about Calente over the years:
"When CNN wants to know about the Top Trends, we ask Gerald Celente."
— CNN Headline News
"[Calente is supported by] a network of 25 experts whose range of specialties would rival many university faculties."
— The Economist
"Gerald Celente has a knack for getting the zeitgeist right."
— USA Today
"There’s not a better trend forecaster than Gerald Celente. The man knows what he’s talking about."
"Those who take their predictions seriously ... consider the Trends Research Institute."
— The Wall Street Journal
"Gerald Celente is always ahead of the curve on trends and uncannily on the mark ... he's one of the most accurate forecasters around."
— The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
"Mr. Celente tracks the world’s social, economic and business trends for corporate clients."
— The New York Times
"Mr. Celente is a very intelligent guy. We are able to learn about trends from an authority."
— 48 Hours, CBS News
"Gerald Celente has a solid track record. He has predicted everything from the 1987 stock market crash and the demise of the Soviet Union to green marketing and corporate downsizing."
— The Detroit News
"Gerald Celente forecast the 1987 stock market crash, ‘green marketing,’ and the boom in gourmet coffees."
— Chicago Tribune
"The Trends Research Institute is the Standard and Poors of Popular Culture."
— The Los Angeles Times
"If Nostradamus were alive today, he'd have a hard time keeping up with Gerald Celente."
— New York Post