In one sense, there is no point railing against it. It is part of the very nature of the left to turn on itself and rip itself apart. There is no point in assigning blame for this, because every leftist thinks their niche is blameless.
When you combine the internecine nature of the left with our current powerlessness you begin to see something worse than finger pointing; you see defeatism and fatalism. People start saying semi-rational things like: “It doesn’t matter because they own the voting machines”, or, “If we take power with a centrist strategy it will only encourage the power brokers to sell out progressive values some more.”
Let’s leave history aside. Ever since the day RFK was gunned down in a Los Angeles hotel, history has not been the friend of the left. Let it go. We are trying to do something new. We are attempting it here at Booman Tribune, and we are attempting it more broadly throughout the blogosphere.
:::flip:::
The only history that concerns us is the (s)election of George Fucking Bush in 2000. I firmly believe that George W. Bush would be facing impeachment if we held both houses of Congress. He wouldn’t be facing it on the current slate of facts, but on the facts that would emerge if they had to answer for their policies before Congressional investigations.
Moreover, the nation’s policies would not be so disastrous if we had control of the legislative process. We can argue all day long about the best strategy for gaining power in Congress, but let me make one thing clear. We can’t do it by losing elections.
We don’t like the DLC strategy of backing off women’s rights, of talking about Dan Quayle’s phony family values. But our presumed nominee for 2008 is Hillary ‘DLC’ Clinton. Fuck her. If we can’t sideline her candidacy we are worthless. But we can sideline it. And the first thing we need to do is to demonstrate to the Democratic politicians that we can get them elected. They don’t need to spend 30 hours a week on the phone raising money from the Chamber of Commerce or bundling from the financial services corporations. If they respond to our concerns they can raise money more painlessly.
The reason Democrats have tacked to the center is not because they have forgotten what they stand for. It’s because they haven’t been able to raise the money to stay in power any other way. Howard Dean’s campaign for the nomination, and his campaign for the DNC chair showed an alternative path. Lots and lots of small contributions from ordinary Americans of modest means are better than a few large donations by the power brokers. Why? It’s less time-consuming and taxing on the candidate.
When we become a more attractive source of campaign funds than the alternative (spending 4 hours a day whoring on the phone) we have our voice heard first. The people, average Joes and Janes, suddenly have more clout than some lobbyist for the soy bean industry.
Money is power. No amount of idealism or reform legislation can change that. If we want to make the politicians in Washington stick up for the little guy, the little guy has to figure out how to stick up for their representatives when they are besieged by maximum contributions from the Exxon/Mobil managerial staff going to their opponent.
But before we can replace the traditional power brokers we have to show results. We have to show our model actually works. And we can’t do that if we don’t believe the model can work. And we aren’t the only game in town. The power brokers are busy at work trying their own strategy which involves recruiting anti-abortion candidates, of soft-pedaling our support for affirmative action, women’s rights, gun control, gay marriage…
Our job is not to oppose the power brokers efforts, but to show our model is even better. We can’t succeed by making the DLC model fail. That is the circular firing squad mentality of the past. We need majorities in Congress for the health of the country. We can’t afford to win by losing, thereby demonstrating the bankruptcy of the DLC model. We have win right along side the DLC model. For every Casey they succeed in electing (with our reluctant help), we need to win an election like Dean’s run for DNC chair (without the DLC’s support).
Above all, we need to have confidence in what we are trying to do. We can’t mope. We can’t sit on the sidelines thinking we will benefit by seeing the DLC model fail. The DLC model must succeed, and we must succeed much more dramatically. We must make the DLC strategy seem ponderous, inefficient, soulless…
But we cannot afford to splinter over our disagreements and go running off pouting about the DLC coronating some candidate here or there. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we have not had enough success to expect to be power brokers in their place. Only success on our part can show the superiority of our model. But our success cannot be measured against the DLC’s failure. It must be measured against the DLC’s success. Otherwise, we will not win enough seats to hold hearings or control the flow of legislation. And we simply cannot afford that outcome.
So, I am optimistic. We can succeed, and if we do, the result will be more progressive candidates, and politicians that are less responsive to monied interests and more responsive to ordinary Americans.
I think the biggest complaint I have with the DLC shtick is that they water down our message. It gives ammunition to the people who say we stand for nothing, when we all know that isn’t true. So how do we strike the balance? I know we have to be successful, but it’s difficult when our ideals are being watered-down by the elected officials who are supposed to be speaking for us, and often don’t.
We need to Keep it Simple
Messages?
End the War in Iraq
End the GOP/Big Business Corruption
Protect Social Security
Universal Health Care
The climate crisis and environment have to be a bigger part of the message than in the past two elections. They could have made the difference.
Election reform as well. Otherwise I agree with your list
yes
environment
I forget that one too easily and I know I shouldn’t
Energy is a national security issue
It is probably the most important security issue…
Until water becomes the issue.
I wonder if anyone keeps statistics on “Peak Water”?
I found this:
So…
Essentially Peak Water is pretty much coinciding with Peak Oil. At least it seems that way?
We pump millions of gallons of treated sewage water (and yes, untreated sewage water as well) back into the water systems every day… I wonder how it would impact global warming if we chilled the water before we dumped it? (Has nothing to do with the topic… But neither does “peak water”. lol)
with a grounding in the arts and real science. No Intelligent Design, no global-warming-is-a-myth, no pseudoscience.
Educate first graders to think and speak for themselves now and maybe in 15 years we won’t have to worry about them being led around by the nose.
I think the ’04 election was the catalyst for those of us who were, and are, tired of hold-your-nose voting. So far in the off-term elections seems like some good candidates are emerging more from the ‘roots up rather than promoted top-down.
That’s a good sign. I’m more the “cautiously” optimistic type, and will watch next year as the campaign season gets up to full speed. Continuing the “Hackett Phenomenon” across the country would mean a win for what’s becoming a movement.
Confidence level is rising.
My two cents on these matters: The wheels did come off when we lost RFK, who not only had come to take progressive positions on issues, but who had a visceral appeal as well as an intelligence and emotional depth we haven’t quite seen in a politican since. He touched people, literally he related by physically touching, and people were touched by him. These are qualities worth looking for in candidates, though certainly not the only way to appeal to voters.
I agree it’s the time to shape the issues and influence candidates, especially for 06, where there is now a real chance of changing Congress. But I don’t feel it’s necessary to open public hostilities against any particular potential Dem presidential candidate at this point.
On the money, that must be what the pros are watching to measure the power of the blogosphere. I believe that election reform, including real changes in campaign financing (including free TV time for candidates, and reinstatement of equal time provisions) should be a major element of the progressive platform. This may be the first time that the blogosphere is called upon to raise money in a big way, but it should be part of the intention that we’d like it to also be the last time it is necessary.
Right. Fucking. On.
thank you BooMan and Susan and the BMT community. I was going to thank you in KO’s diary, but everything there was so well put I can’t add to those comments, and I’ve voiced my opinion on the subject previously.
The reason I chose to thank you here is because I wanted to thank you for the reminder about the need for a Democratic majority in Congress. I prefer Rep. Conyers, Lee, Waters and Senators Schumer and Boxer, to name just a few, as committee chairpersons vs. what we have today. Every so often I need to be reminded that we have only had one Democratic President since 1980, and only one in the decade prior to that. I fall into the trap of looking at things without remembering that without the power of subpoena or investigation, we are left with basement hearings (led by Representative Conyers) on dining tables into the outright treason illustrated by the Downing Street Minutes.
I also sometimes need to be reminded that Governor Dean is not a liberal. Rather, he is a straight shooter who has shown a different way of fund-raising that might, just maybe, get us to where we ought to be as indicated in your diary (focusing on the real problems in the USA, and not beholden to corporate interests and the time-consuming butt-kissing used to finance a modern campaign.) I like Governor Dean — I am thrilled he is the head of the DNC. I think we don’t seem him often on the RWCM because he is more interested in building 50-state strategies and speaking to Knight Ridder-type, smaller media outlets.
I sometimes need to be reminded that my liberal outlook has been missing from national elected officials since, I don’t know how long — I was in my mom’s belly when Kennedy was assassinated, so I can’t tell you how long from personal experience. And yet, most liberal ideas are what made the US great and what most people agree with.
As an optimist, I hope Katrina helps us to focus not only on the sorry state of affairs when it comes to cronyism and the overwhelming focus against terrorism at great cost to much of society which ALREADY suffers from natural disasters, racism, health care crises, and poverty. I hope that we as a society realize that there are problems in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Sacramento, etc. that suffer when we give tax cuts to the richest.
I know there are some Democrats who are true to the progressive cause, I long for the day that committee assignments and legislative control are controlled by Democrats (even DLC’ers) — because they have been absolutely abused to the core, particularly under DeLay and Frist.
Agreed. Also worth remembering is that much of the DLC has come to hate Bush and the Repubs with almost the same passion as the left wing of the party. That means that the same dynamic which allows the Caseys of this world to get a lot of support from the left also allows the progressives to get support from the centrists.
Believe me, you will know.
If we can’t sideline her candidacy we are worthless.
Agreed, and I accept your challenge. Stop Hillary and win back Congress.
How many here have signed up for Governor Dean’s $20/month “Democracy Bonds?” [Raises hand, raises wife’s hand, raises mother-in-law’s hand.] I think that’s a great place to put our money where our collective mouth is.
That democracy bond (I mistyped “bomb” at first, what does that mean in Freudian!?) thing is very cool. Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how TO BUY ONE! I can login and send people emails that say I DID buy one, and that they should too, but I can’t actually buy one… what’s the secret?
Aha, I found it! You have to click the “Get Yours Now” picture above where it talks about “Login” (and incidentally, there is NO handy link for doing it from within a logged in account!). Terrible web design. Just like the Democrats to make it hard to figure out how to give them money (and like they couldn’t have put “Buy yours now!” as a link in the text somewhere?).
Anyway, I am now a proud and mighty bondholder, and all the better that I got it with a Working Assets Visa! Take that, corruption and pollution!
Now, to figure out how to construct a Democracy Bomb…
You’re so right–you have to click that image to buy one, but it’s highly non-obvious that’s a necessary step. Glad you figured it out, and that applause you hear is me thanking you for helping the DNC!
As my parents would say, “Use some good ol’ CS.”
We can’t look for the rare savior while casting aside the ordinary but hard-working Democratic elected officials who’ve — many of them — done a great job, under near impossible circumstances, in the past few years.
BooMan gave me a book, “What It Takes.” What a book. Even though we ridicule them — take Joe Biden, for instance, who’s intimately featured in the book along with Bob Dole, George Bush Sr., Dukakis, etc. — it’s incredible what those elected Democrats accomplish every day and the astounding number of hours they put in.
‘sides, there are no saviors. Paul Hackett looked like a great pick. He was an ass on Bill Maher’s show a few weeks back. He really was. Still, I pray he runs again. He’ll learn. But he is not perfect but a long stretch. (For one thing, he has very little political experience and that’s a big worry.)
We’ve gotta be practical right now. BooMan, there are no substitutes for your wonderful essay above. You said it all.
But, I’ll include this tidbit from a Joel Connelly column in the Seattle PI that I stumbled across today. It’s from October 2004.
The “progressive” Democrats in Wash. state loathe Connelly’s writing. He has always been a Kerry man. The Democrats ridicule him for that.
But, when I wrote Connelly a personal note a couple years ago, he wrote back with quite a story about sitting in a boat in Alaska with John Kerry once, drinking a few beers and talking environment, and Connelly was won over.
See, he knew something I didn’t about Kerry, and he valued what he’d seen up close and personal.
Then there are the practical considerations that average Americans take into account in sizing up a candidate every day, and Connelly wrote about that in his Oct. 2004 column.
What he writes is true. I saw Warren Magnuson in person in the early 1970s — he came to visit with my boss, who was a part owner of KING Broadcasting. He looked horrible in “real life,” as opposed to television where he was always made up. His face was blotchy, florid, bloated, falling in puddles of droopy fat. I later asked the publisher of an inhouse magazine why he looked like that, and he told me that Maggie (his nickname) drank a fifth of vodka every day. That astounded me. But, you know what, he was still one of the best senators we ever had, he was good for the state of Washington, and he birthed some of the greatest legislation in this country’s history, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Sometimes you dance with the one that brung ya.
Thats it. I’m there.
This makes sense. We must both succeeed. Sometimes we hold our nose other times we have no regrets only joy. The world will turn.
Incorrect. Conservative candidates have been getting less and less of the vote, and polls continually show that the majority of the country is progressive. History is our friend. Politicians aren’t. Politicians in this country are significantly more conservative than the people they represent, and keep pushing for the parties to select ever more conservative candidates.
We have to stop listening to our enemies and start listening to our hearts. Screw voting strategically, vote for the candidate you want to represent you. If there isn’t one, don’t vote and work to make sure there is one next time.
Okay, Booman, please tell me. How is it the left turning on itself to attack the misogynist fanatics and their supporters? These people aren’t part of the left wing. They hate women, and they’ll do anything and everything they can to shove them back in the box. They’ve proven repeatedly that they’ll sacrifice any and every other value they supposedly hold to pursue this end.
Why is it a bad thing to oppose those that want to enslave half the population, especially when they try and claim they’re our allies?
your post is a poster child for the left turning on itself.
Over and over again these decisions are made. They are the wrong decisions. My strategy is about overcoming the past by building a new way. If Democrats are more conservative than their constituents it is because of where they get their money.
Well I have never been one to abstain — even at the local level. But my vote for Kerry was the last “lesser of two evils” votes I’ll ever cast. And quite frankly when progressives ask others to wink at politicians that are harming our country, I really feel I have no where to go.
to wink, I am asking you to believe in this community and in the blogosphere, and to believe that we can turn this around. And to believe that we need a majority to prove our worth, and that we can’t gain a majority if some of these odious DLC picks lose.
That really speaks to what I have been thinking about this whole latest blowup over Kos’s comments, and all the subsequent discussions. Because there are two totally opposed sides:
A- Can’t support those who have non-progressive views, no matter their affiliation
versus
B- Must support all Democrats, because as long as the Republicans are in charge, the progressive Democrats can’t accomplish anything.
And the problem I’m having is that both sides are totally right! Which I think leads to the only real solution (which is effectively impossible, but that’s the liberal life for you): get the Democrats to only put up really good candidates! How do we do that? I don’t know, but those Democracy Bonds in an earlier comment are a little tidbit towards that idea. Another idea is to just really support the really good candidates. And to run for local offices yourself if you’re so damn progressive. Start from the bottom, do what you can.
For myself, I’m thinking to straddle the line: if it’s a choice of Democrats, I’m all about the one who best represents my issues (and damn the polls!). If it’s between D and R, the issues are out the window, and I’ll hold my nose and go blue. I hate the Democratic party a lot. It’s total garbage. But that puts it countless miles above the odious stench of the Republican cesspool, and I have just enough hint of pragmatist candy coating on my chocolatey idealist core to know that these days, it’s only one or the other. Incidentally, that’s also why I don’t belong at dKos (but it’s not why I left – I left because of the behavior!).
I guess this is my official resignation from 3rd party voting… which is terribly sad. I might even register D. I’ve been unaffiliated my whole life. I don’t want to contribute to the 2-party insanity (can you imagine if our 100 senators were scattered from 15 different parties? Or 50? They’d have to vote based on the issues, they wouldn’t have enough people to have a party line to toe!), but with the percentages the way they are, a 3rd party vote in most elections (anything above, say, mayor of a small town) is pretty much moot.
You win again, reality. Damn you! And gravity too!
Frankly, that’s a nonsensical position. If the progressive grassroots (PGR) helps the odious DLC pricks win, then this is going to do nothing but increase the DLC’s worth. Especially if they use our divided attention to torpedo progressive candidates. On the other hand, if the PGR does nothing to help DLC candidates and focuses all its attention on progressive candidates, who then go on to win or very nearly win in hopeless races, while the DLC candidates lose or win only safe seats, then this will very clearly prove the PGR’s worth.
I think the PGR should be hammering 24/7 on getting the most progressive candidates on top. That’s fantastic, and it’s vital. But then when the election comes around, and the DLC has bested us yet again with their centrist candidates, vote for them over their Republican rivals. Then when you get home from placing your vote, and take a shower, get back on the internet and start hammering on more progressive candidates!
To me it’s two different layers of the stinky political onion. Inside is crafting the best party you can, which is a non-stop effort: choosing candidates, supporting candidates, POLICING elected officials to make sure they’re doing what they should, letters to the editor, voting in primaries, fighting the good fight for your issues, charities, protests, everything. You want to make the party fit your issues as much as possible – you want to be represented!
Then outside of that, a wider layer, you need to to get that party, as good as you’ve gotten it, or as bad as the DLC has gotten it, to succeed against the other parties that are worse. That’s a short-term job – just vote! Other people would say you need to support the various D candidates even if you don’t like them, and I don’t agree. I’ll give them the support of a vote, because I’m voting for the party. I don’t care what message I’m sending at that point, I just care about getting the guys I do like (some tiny percentage of all Democrats) to be in the majority party. I’ll give my money and time to the ones who really represent me.
So there’s the small level, where it’s about individuals, but then there’s a wider level, where it’s about entire parties. Voting in crappy D candidates gives your beloved D superheroes or whatever you want to call them more power! Because like it or not, politics is done by party. Even crappy D’s will mostly stick with what the other D’s are doing. A lot more than any R for sure (and more problematic is just how lockstep the R’s are – I used to love John McCain big time, but he no longer is an honest, single entity fighting for what he believes in… he’s just sticking to the crowd, and frankly not all that honest anymore).
So here’s my theory (cut it a lot of slack, it just arrived this afternoon!): work your ass off to change the party, to make it what you want. Then when it comes to election time, vote it in in whatever state it’s in, and then turn right around and get back to shaping it up!
I don’t know who I just agreed or disagreed with there!
to some degree I agree with you here. I also think if we really give it a big heeve 2 we can make some things happen and that will make the dlc stand up and say what the hell just happened here.
In say this tho, I think it is going to be a very hard and rough job ahead of us if we do not get out and find the canidate of our choosing to run…..many do not want the effort of facing off the dlc.
Oh well, just my feelings on things…but I see your point.
Really? Will they? Recent history seems to contradict you. Salazar, among others, broke ranks on Abu Gonzales. Loads of crappy D politicians broke ranks on the Bankruptcy Bulldozer. Who knows how many are going to break ranks to confirm Roberts because of his pro-reproductive slavery stances, despite the fact that he’s going to trample all over the Democratic platform?
But… how can “loads” break ranks? Isn’t that really just a difference of opinion in the whole? If a lot of them do it, then that’s not really a crappy politician, it’s a crappy party! And I know how that’s gonna get you up in arms about how we need to be throwing away the bad candidates so we don’t have a crappy party, which I agree with. I just think that’s a step that needs to take place prior to general elections, not as a part of the election. Voting for no one is a vote for… well, no one.
And my more meaningful but… would you rather have someone who breaks ranks on a few issues, or someone who votes in lockstep with the Rs on all issues? Those are the only choices, after all. Unless you work PRE-election to find and fund a candidate who follows your idea of the D party!
I’m sorry, I’m not really trying to argue with you. I agree with your overall stance and very very much with your idealism. I just have that notion, like I said before, of there being two separate levels to it, the individual and the party. I think individual’s more important, but once you’re in the voting booth, you need to take a moment to make sure that your future individual-level work is going to mean something. That could be wrong, as at heart I’m mostly a defeatist – I don’t think it’s gonna matter one way or the other what you or I try to do (or how we vote – I say make election reform the #1 issue before they do away with voting entirely!).
I do want to say very clearly that I am wholeheartedly against promoting and funding crappy candidates just because they are likely to win. I think like what you say, that it leads to the party itself changing for the worse – if we endorse the bad ones, then we’re saying we want what they stand for. This Chuck Pennachio call that keeps coming up in all these threads, I’m all for it. But I just think that once those crappy candidates are up there, I’m going with them instead of the other party. That to me is the dividing line between the two layers. To some other people, it’s all about getting the D’s in there at any cost, and then fixing things. To others like you, it’s about the issues alone from beginning to end, and forget the party.
Personally, I’m with you right up until the voting booth. I am not with you on the “don’t vote if you don’t like the choices”. That’s always a half-vote for the greater of two evils, and a full vote for apathy – even if you’re not doing it out of apathy, you’re fueling the politicians’ belief that people just don’t bother to vote, and hurting the system overall. I really believe that. Everyone should vote every chance they get!
Now, if they’d just add a “None Of The Above” box to the ballot, your message might get through!
I guess I don’t see the odious DLC picks as “us” so their winning doesn’t make a majority.
And though you say you are not asking me to wink, it seems that is just what you are doing.
This whole thing reminds me of an abused spouse (something with which I am familiar) always having to give in for the “good” of the family or because the abuser will eventually see the light.
I respect your opinions a lot, but I really disagree with this one.
I’m gonna step away from the computer for a while. Need to calm down.
Boo, you may be good at putting words in my mouth, but you’re really, really bad at arguing this.
First off, I never said to abstain. I’ll explain my argument in more detail for you:
Voting for the lesser of two evils is very definitely bad. In fact, it’s provably bad. Votes don’t just select a candidate, they shape the pattern of political discourse. If a lot of people vote for a candidate that believes in X – more than last election, say – this is taken as a sign that more people are coming to accept X, and that candidates need to move in that direction. So by voting for a misogynist fanatic, you’re saying, in the only language that matters, “Give me more misogynist fanatics to vote for!” It doesn’t matter how you justify your vote, or what broader strategy the vote is a part of. You’ve run up a flag saying that you find this person’s beliefs to be acceptable.
Not voting in an election (any election), on the other hand, sends a very clear message – that you don’t find either candidate acceptable. This is then a statement that you can use come the next primary season, to push for a candidate that is acceptable for you. Voting “strategically” deprives you of this tool. It may be a short-term salve for your conscience, but in the long-term, it damages your cause and silences your voice. Not voting gives you a weapon that you can use to advance your cause, and support candidates that you find, if not ideal, at least palatable.
If I were advocating abstaining, I would also advocate not taking part in the primary process. This would be a “fight the system” stance, which I very explicitly do not take. I advocate working within the system to advance your cause, rather than trying to game it.
(In fact, trying to game a system with millions of participants is inherently doomed to failure.)
Secondly, I’m not saying that everyone else is a rightist in sheep’s clothing. I do, however, believe that there are certain minimum standards that candidates should be held to, and that those that do not should be called to change their position or their party affiliation. They should, for example, be expected to support, or at least not oppose, the party platform. Nominating and supporting candidates that actively oppose significant planks of the party platform – Casey’s support for reproductive slavery, for example, or Biden’s apparent belief that corporations are superior to citizens – is counterproductive, and will do nothing but weaken that platform, both in the eyes of voters, by diluting the party brand, and at the party convention, by bolstering voices that seek to destroy the platform.
The “self-destructive” infighting of which you speak is the left wing (predictably) reacting negatively to the thoroughly nonsensical notion that, in order to advance progressive principles that the vast majority of the population supports, it must vote for candidates that strongly oppose those principles.
Also, I take issue with your statement that these decisions have been made repeatedly. I’d like to see some evidence to back that up, please? What I’ve seen is Democrats deciding to go right “strategically”, despite the fact that it is a proven failure. I have not in my lifetime seen them try a progressive strategy, or run progressive candidates. It is this “strategic” plunge rightward on the part of the party’s base that has created a party composed mainly of “centrists” and right-center politicians, not any supposed self-destructive nature of the left, nor any supposed massive source of income.
Here in Canada (and, in fact, in most civilized nations), we have a perfectly healthy, active, and unified political left wing that does not feel any need to veer to the right. We also have an active, unified political centre (largely represented by our “Liberal” party), and a fractious, divided, hostile political right. Your thesis seems to be that this situation in general is downright impossible, and the unified political left in particular simply cannot exist. I think your thesis is, frankly, total baloney.
that coming from a parliamentary system has a subliminal effect on your outlook. I could be wrong because I don’t know your upbringing.
First of all, if strategic voting is a failure, how much more so is strategicly losing in order to win later?
My first assumption is that most politicians (of both parties) have a few core interests and they mold the rest of their positions to their state or district and to their source of funding.
Change their funding and you change their position. Change their constituency and you change their position on hot-button social issues. Cynical? Absolutely.
Al Gore, Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich were anti-abortion until they sought higher office (a different constituency). Then they flipped. George H.W. Bush was pro-choice until he sought the nomination in 1988. The party’s money-sources had changed since 1980.
Joe Biden would have voted against the bankruptcy bill if he represented Oregon instead of Delaware.
If you can make it possible for Joe Biden to raise the same amount of money in a fraction of the time, he will choose less time every time.
And his votes will change. But we can also get rid of a Joe Biden by matching the money the credit cards give him for a challenger.
The key is to build an alternative. But first we must show that our model works.
And to me, there is nothing more important than getting back the ability to investigate the executive. Every other issue pales in comparison.
I have not advocated strategically losing. Strategically losing would be a strategy like “If we lose on purpose, things will get worse, then we’ll be able to rally support to make them better!” This is still playing “strategically” – what I think is best described as “attempting to game the system”. What I’m advocating is working within the system instead of trying to game it. Using it as intended – by voting for candidates that share your beliefs, and not voting for those that don’t share those beliefs – is being totally non-strategic and straightforward. And is most likely to be effective.
And right there, you’re already off the mark. Biden, Kerry, and Clinton, for example, have no discernible core positions – all of their positions are “focus grouped” to convince as many people as possible that they’ll win. This is the sort of candidate Democrats have been losing with nationally since before I was born. On the other hand you have politicians like Hackett, who relentlessly and continually focus on their core beliefs, regardless of what prevailing wisdom or polls of their district say. These candidates, when they’re allowed to run, do extremely well.
Again, this comes back to the difference between gaming the system and using it. As a politician, molding your positions based on what you think your voters and contributors want is gaming the system, and is bad in so many ways. For starters, you run the risk of molding yourself wrong and having to change course mid-stream, which looks horrible to voters. You also push the system towards “Pragmatic Democracy”, where voters vote for candidates they think will win, and candidates do nothing but attempt to convince voters they can win. On the other hand, enunciating your own beliefs is using the system the way it was meant to be used. Sure, if your voters object to your beliefs, you’ll probably lose. But again, this is as intended! In this case, a politician shouldn’t change their mind, but should work on changing voters’ minds! (Or enter into honest debate to determine what the best solution is)
Both cynical and pointless. Progressives will never outspend big business (and make no mistake – totalitarianism and fascism are the biggest business there is!). We have to win without outspending big business. If we rely on outspending big business to convince, say, Biden to take our side, it’ll be like drinking the ocean.
Kucinich illustrates why, exactly, your position is fundamentally misguided. As has explained, many times, he “flipped” because of new information and presentation, not because he thought it was what voters wanted. Including Gephardt and Bush I in your list simply damages your point, as they’re exactly the kind of politician that harms the system by attempting to game it. Gore, Gephardt, and Kuchinich also damage it because they lost, and Bush damages it because he wound up “selling out” his base and lost.
In fact, all these candidates horribly damage your point. They’re all (arguably) candidates that flipped position to meet the prevailing winds, and suffered because of it! Just the kind of thing we want to avoid!
And if I had a magical bracelet, I could transform into Sailor Moon and sweep this entire problem away with my Moon Tiara Action. Biden doesn’t represent Oregon, and it’s pointless to say “if he did, he wouldn’t have done this”. Would he have been elected in Oregon in the first place? What circumstances would have lead him to run for office there? If these change, what other changes to his basic worldview are implied?
If you seriously think you can outspend the credit card companies, the content cartels, and Microsoft, feel free. Just remember that bankruptcy isn’t a happy place anymore.
The trick, as the software industry provides an excellent demonstration of, is to win without outspending by refusing to compromise on your principles. Yes, it takes time, but you can do it. Richard Stallman’s been working on that for twenty years, and the movement he started is so big that Microsoft exists in abject terror of it, and has tried (and failed) to kill it by legislation multiple times. And at the core of the Free Software Movement’s success is a simple rule: RMS is always right. Why? Because he refuses to compromise his principles about how things should be for the sake of convenience. And convenience is always, always a short-term thing. Go for convenience, and you’ll lose every time.
And gee, guess what the Democrats have been doing over and over and over again?
RMS also, fairly constantly, gets called out on the “single-issue” thing, on being a nutcase, on lacking tolerance. But guess what? People keep coming back to him, and keep working with him and with the movement he leads. Why? Because he’s right, and because his positions are his own, and change only for very good reasons. (Honest debate)
You can right now. Remember Jeff Gannon? Remember all the other scandals the PGR has unearthed over the last six years?
But I can already hear you saying it… “These things don’t go anywhere! We need control of the legislature to make them stick!” No, no you don’t. The reason they don’t go anywhere is because the media is fundamentally hostile to progressives right now. The content cartels are owned and operated by die-hard Republicans, and are interested in one thing, and one thing only: control over culture. As long as you keep working your asses off to elect candidates – like Biden, Clinton, and Feinstein – that are in the content cartels’ pockets, this isn’t going to change. The only way to get these things fixed is by… Guess what? Electing progressive candidates instead of assorted varieties of nutcases.
With all due respect, not voting sends no message of any kind. It is nothing more than sophism to even posit such within the framework of a “democratic” government. If you do not vote you do not have a voice…period.
If you honestly believe that to be a viable strategy, perhaps you can enlighten us on the benefits in a more substantial way. Show one instance, anywhere, anytime that supports that supposition and I will gladly debate the issue with you.
While you’re contemplating your response, please explain the difference, as you perceive it, between not voting and abstaining. Your analogy relative to primaries is specious, at best.
Peace
No analogy was present in my post. I’m not sure what you’re talking about there.
The difference between abstaining and not voting is a question of participation in process. If you abstain, you shut yourself out from the entire political process. This is what at least 50% of American voters have been forced to do by the endless parade of insipid conservative candidates that everyone seems obsessed with perpetuating.
However, if you don’t vote but remain involved in the process, you do indeed send a message. That message is “None of these candidates are worth spending my vote on”. If there was a “None of the Above” on American ballots, you’d be able to do this explicitly. Since there isn’t, you have to do it by not voting, and by making it clear why and how you didn’t vote. Since you have not allowed your vote to speak against you, you are still capable of doing this.
Voting strategically (for the lesser of two evils, say) sends the message – and only sends the message, loud enough that it blocks out everything else you say – that you will vote for evil.
It’s like the Democrats in power now. Sure, they can’t really prevent the Republicans from doing whatever they want. However, even token votes along party lines are very powerful statements. By your logic, such votes would be pointless, as the Democrats are throwing their vote away.
If you really insist that not voting prevents you from being involved in the political process in any way, then vote for a third party. But don’t vote for evil, because that sends the message that you will vote for evil.
Whether or not one remains a participant in the process is irrelevant to the question. Regardless of what may be achieved through activism at the root level, relative to the selection of candidates, vis-à-vis primaries, caucuses, etc, the only thing that that “counts” is your vote on the second Tuesday of November. I, nor anyone else here has called for the advancement of insipid conservative candidates, and, in fact have clearly stated that they should be soundly rejected. We are merely one of many voices in the process and we are continuing to work vigorously in our attempt to return to government of, by, and for the people.
You are correct, 50% of eligible voters do not vote, and that is a travesty in and of itself and as such requires a different strategy. However, far more than that do not participate at any level in the process. The only message that can be sent by not voting, given the system as it is now structured is, as it has always been, none…no one home. This cannot and does not send a message, or, if it does it is read as “keep doing what you’re doing” by those in power.
I did not, have not, nor do I posit that: token votes along party lines…are pointless, quite the contrary, my position is most closely described by your phrase:…even token votes along party lines are very powerful statements. Further, I do not insist that not voting prevents anyone from being involved, my position is if you do not vote, you have negated your involvement and IMHO, forfeited your rights to the whims of others.
Your argument is reminiscent of Nader’s ..”no difference between the two”…of 2000. Unfortunately, we have been witness to the consequences of that particular misconception.
I’m glad your are optimistic and I hope you are right. I, personally, think you are half right in this diary. We do have to step up and “pay” for what we want out of our Democracy. However, I truly believe the DLC-types will then say thank you very much and go back to getting even more dough from their corporate interests. Sadly, for most officeholders their number one priority is protecting their own power. That’s it. They may not admit it –even to themselves, but that is what it is about. The DLCers were strategically brilliant in allowing Dean to become DNC chair. They were able to sideline him and still toss a bone to the base.
I for one am done “reluctantly” helping any candidate I don’t believe in. I may disagree with him/her — on a good day I only agreed with Dean on about 75% of stuff, but I believed he would be honest and open and stand for something. I think we don’t need to spend our time tearing down the sellouts in the center. Center keeps changing. And no one is in the center on everything. We have to work for and with candidates we believe in.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended, but I really don’t see how enabling people I believe are hurting the country is going to lead to a more progressive result.
I am not optimistic.
No, this is the bullshit. This is just another variation on the “damned hippies/treehuggers/single-issue-voters” attack on people who want their values upheld.
The left isn’t the one doing the turning, it’s the center-right of the party. You don’t want to talk about the past, well I’m not, I’m talking about the present. The idealists were hunted down and driven from the party by the old Daley machine, which helped the Kennedy machine put JFK in office, with massive amounts of voter fraud. The Kennedy machine returned the favor by killing the populist/Carter wing of the party in the late ’70s, and the consultants and office holders who grew up from those two old machines are carrying on their legacy. You can hear the current echoes of those old smoky back rooms in the words of Senator Schumer gloating about how the party is going to have Casey running for Senate, and everybody can just STFU about it.
They won’t reward you for your help/support. They demand it. The peons will get their bushels of grain, AFTER the duty has been paid. Supporting them will only get you more corpofriendly laws passed.
The ONLY way to make them pay attention is to fight them. It saddens me that you can’t see that.
It saddens me that you think you can win by losing. If Casey wins the nomination do you actually wan’t him to lose? To prove a point? What if that seat is the swing seat for power in the Senate?
And I resent this crap about me somehow bashing hippies. It’s totally retarded.
[1] If we are striving toward a progressive majority and seek to “show results” via small donations, then why are we not infusing the Pennacchio campaign with funds? My understanding is that his principle problem has been fundraising. I am not a PA resident, so I am anxious to hear your opinion on this.
[2] Our job is not to oppose the power brokers efforts, but to show our model is even better.
I am wondering if you have read “The Myth of Small Donor Clout” in The Nation. I have found a copy that isn’t hidden behind a subscription firewall here.
How do we reconcile the goals of our model with the reality of how our contributions actually impact politics?
No, you can’t win by losing. But you can’t win by electing candidates that are on the wrong side of the issues, either.
If, as is frequently claimed in various blogs, big majorities of the voting public are against the war, pro-choice, support single-payer health, and are ok with civil unions, then why is it a losing strategy to run candidates that take those positions? Only because the centrists have talked people into this contorted thinking that says they should vote for candidates that they don’t agree with. That’s the “electability” argument, and I don’t buy it.
We need decent candidates on the left, and people to vote for them. All this strategic voting business and “it’s ok, he’s a Democrat” thinking is baloney.
what strategic voting is? It’s basing your decision on who to vote for on who you want to win. But no strategy is any good if it has no prospect for success. Voting for Nader was not strategic.
What is worse is tactical voting. Tactical voting, which includes not voting, is an effort to influence the next election, not the one you are casting a vote in.
This is the reasoning that it is better for Santorum to remain a Senator because we don’t want to encourage more Caseys in the future. That thinking sacrifices this election for some supposed benefit in the future. We cannot afford to do that in 2006. Are tactics have to be aimed at winning a majority. Our strategy is to shift the loci of support so that candidates have to pander to us and not to corporations and rich donors.
Then, even some of the centrist pols will change their voting activities. Meanwhile we will work to field more of our candidates in the first place.
how can I vote for someone who will take away my reproductive rights? That is an immediate, personal danger.
How so? Take the race for Colorado governor as an example. The only Democrat running is anti-choice. With Bush’s 2 Supreme court picks it is likely that this issue would return to the individual states.
It is a tough decision. I assume the Republican is also anti-choice. Is that correct?
If so, you have to decide whether you prefer the Dem for other reasons. Governorships are little different because they have no effect on the national power structure. Ultimately I don’t believe in third-party voting or not voting. But I can understand being unable to support either candidate. The question is whether you have a preference. If not, don’t vote.
But for Congress, you should vote for the party regardless of the candidate. At the same time, you should work to get better candidates in the future. Doing both in tandem is better than sitting it out.
with Salazar. I went way beyond my comfort zone in canvassing, registering voters and working with MoveOn to bring people to the polls on election day.
So what did I get? Every time I call on an issue I’m told that he ran as an independent and won my vote as such, so don’t be surprised at how he votes.
So my work and vote are partly responsible for Gonzales. Yipee.
that’s not even true, is it?
He ran on Democratic money, but claimed he was an “independent” dem, a renegade untamed by the evil forces of politics, a straight shooter… you get the drift.
And yes they really do say that.
I’m disillusioned on this because of a preponderance of evidence.
Nice attempt at redefining terms to defuse an objection to your argument.
Strategic voting is voting based on who you think will win. It’s voting for electability – what people did with Kerry in 2004. It’s also fundamentally doomed, because it means that the best thing a politician can do is convince you that they’re going to win. Which is what your “prospect of success” thing comes back to.
Voting for the person you want to win means voting for the person you want to win. If you want Nader to win, then you vote for him.
Glad to see you’ve completely misinterpreted my point. What I’ve been trying to say is that voting for the candidate you want to win – rather than the lesser of two evils – is both the best way to get a candidate you want now and influence the next election. Strategically voting for the lesser of two evils means you don’t get the candidate you want now, and you don’t get the candidate you want next time.
Take a choice. Lose then win, or keep losing. So far, the Democrats have fairly consistently picked option “B”.
So let me ask you this. What’s more damaging in the long term? Having Santorum remain in office for another six years and the corrupt PA Democratic party machine discredited… Or having two major parties in favour of reproductive slavery and none opposed to it?
Also, I have to ask: “Winning a majority of what?” If your majority consists of politicians that oppose you on the issues, is it really a majority? Or is it a short-sighted convenience strategy that misses the long-term goal: shift political discourse back to the left?
Sure your right if the only issue was reproductive freedom.
Isn’t it? Recent events seem to show that it’s an overriding issue. Reid and who knows how many other Democrats look like they’re going to bereak ranks to confirm Roberts. Why? Because they’re pro-reproductive slavery, and he is too. This is despite all the evidence that he’s going to trample all over the rest of the party platform. At this point, the reasonable thing to assume would be that Casey will join those ranks, and place “voting his conscience” to oppress women before voting to support labour.
are not a single issue. For women it embodies economic issues, education, freedom- our whole lives.
Point taken but how about the right to organize the right to learn real science and not pseudo science. A sane and progressive tax structure. I admire you all for taking the stand of the true believer but we need to stop the neocons. We have to stop these idiots before the next and next disaster befalls this country. Yes it sucks yes we’ve been betrayed by the DLC’s neocon lite. Yes I read your arguments but we have little choice here. I never want to look at Santorum again he is one of the truly evil neocon idiots. Casey is just an idiot.
I’m going to address this point in a longer diary tomorrow- but didn’t want you to think I’m ignoring it. Goodnight!
strategic voting of the type you are discussing does not exist in a two-party winner take all election.
You simply can’t vote for Bush even though you prefer Kerry because you think Bush has a better chance of winning.
And you can’t vote for Nader for a different reason.
You must vote for Kerry to have any sensible strategy at all. Unless, your intent is to effect the next election.
Once again, you are applying parliamentary voting strategies to the American system.
Next, my issue is having subpoena power. Nothing else matters to me. But on the issue of women’s rights, they cannot be protected by Santorum. Period. If he has power, the rights will erode. If Casey has power they will not, or at least much more gradually.
I don’t want Casey. I’m just saying.
Madman, I’m a huge fan of your writing, so please don’t take this personally, but I’d like you to reconcile your statement here:
with part of where you quoted BooMan:
What I see is a discussion where there is no clear cut right answer (even my 8-ball says “Concentrate and Ask Again”). You may be sad that BooMan disagrees with you, but by saying you’re sad that he can’t see it your way implies that you’ve got some monopoly on foreseeing truth. Your writing is great, but I haven’t seen evidence of that particular ability yet.
first, I was away from the ‘puter for a while, so I hope you see this, and that you don’t think I was blowing you off.
I am NOT disagreeing w/ Booman over POLICIES, but over TACTICS. I am VERY libertarian w/ it comes to individual rights, and VERY traditionally liberal when it comes to gov’t regulation over commerce and companies.
My problem is this demand for some kind of drop-dead loyalty oath:
– you’ve got nowhere else to go.
therefore:
– you MUST vote for whoever the Democratic Party nominee is, REGARDLESS of his policy positions.
so:
– SOMETIME in some imagined future your coalition/beliefs will be rewarded for that loyalty.
NEVER in my lifetime have I seen this to hold true. The theocons withheld votes, protested RINOs they disagreed with and targeted races. They put vast amounts of pressure on the national Republican party to open up the primary process, to give their candidates a hearing. After the Robertson candidacy, the RNC stopped attacking the religious right. Over time, they took over.
OUR party, on the other hand, has continuously attacked it’s active wing. It has used them for political points, demanded their loyalty, then rewarded them with betrayal after betrayal. This goes for labor (NAFTA), the poor (welfare reform), women (failure to protect reproductive health, several prominent members of the party crossing the aisle, DFL) and gays (DOMA).
This, to me, is a sign that the party doesn’t want us. I’d be more willing to buy Booman’s argument if I saw any hope that it would pay off, or if this was a Parliamentary system where the left wing of the coalition can threaten to bring down the coalition. Neither of those, alas, are true. He can claim that withholding the vote, leading to further losses and eventual collapse, is stupid, but I disagree if you continue to support progressive choices in other races, building up a “bench” to build the party for the future. Will we lose more? Losing it anyway. My sister citizens are being returned to reproductive slavery. My gay neighbors will continue to be treated like second-class citizens. The poor are getting poorer. The prison industrial complex continues to expand, and economic peonage is soon to become the law of the land. All of this horrible damage DONE BIPARTISANLY.
Schumer, Reid et. al. leave me and those like me no choice.
I don’t know if you feel that answers your point. If the DSCC & DCCC were willing to have open primaries, if they were willing to let the left in the party have a fair fight, I’d be more willing to play along. As my link shows above, they are NOT willing to do that. They are happy to maintain their perogatives at our, and our country’s, expense. They continue to cooperate in bullshit districting plans and failures to provide the right to open and fair voting. They don’t represent me, or anyone other than themselves and the wealthy status quo.
Thank you for the kind words, and no, I don’t take it personally. I appreciate the opportunity to hash these things out in an environment where civil disagreement and NO ratings abuse. We help each other sharpen our views, hashing through the debate. If only we could replicate this on a national scale, if only demogoguery and all of the other bullshit didn’t so often preclude debate. We’d all be better off. Bloody, bowed, maybe nobody completely happy, but probably with a better outcome. The wealthy and the authoritarians (corporate and religious)have distorted the debate so badly that we are left with shams like the Roberts hearings.
I weep for my country.
Thanks a lot for this response.
I’m still more or less a noob when it comes to talking political strategy. So I really appreciate people like you and BooMan taking time to explain your stances on things like this.
I’m fully willing to admit I don’t know it all, and in fact, know very little. Maybe that gives me a unique perspective. Maybe not.
Going beyond what we should do, and who we should support, etc., there is one lynchpin piece to this discussion that we would need to resolve before we can start discussing tactics.
I’m big into metaphor, but I don’t know if I can come up with a good one. I’m going to try though, dammit.
Imagine that ‘Policy’ is an abstract space. Like outer space. No real boundaries.
A stance on an issue (what political parties now might call ‘planks’) is a point. Where each of us locates each point is dependent on our views. No issue is truly black and white, so I don’t like the plank, or line graph descriptions (e.g. Pro-Choice vs. Anti-Choice, or “75% NARAL rating”).
Now, the Democratic party is an amorphous blob. Our goal is to direct this blob so that it’s boundaries lie as close to all of our individual points as possible.
So the question, then is : Are we more effective manipulating the blob by pushing from the outside, or by pulling on it from the inside?
Did that make any sense at all?
sure, and that’s the problem. I appreciate that Dean is trying to push from the inside, but I think he has more chance of success if a bunch of us push from the outside.
I agree Booman.
However, where are the candidates that represent us? We seem to have a lot of DLC type candidates, but I’ve seen few fire in the belly progressives running. I’d be happy to learn more about those that are and maybe tha’s a feature we could include in BT – “a progressive candidate of the month” or whenever. From dog catcher to POTUS, it would be nice to hear of or from progressives who embody our values.
I should stay out of this one; however, I want to recommend one thought to you all. What is it that you truly believe in? Who is it that you truly believe in? How can you get that person elected? Why is that person the person for you to push and then back? If you truly can answer those questions then go for it. When is the time for you to start in this of which you truly believe in?
Let it be known, I stand by the progressive factor of politics. I did when it was an infant and I will now that it is truly a young entity. Why? Cuz it is how I believe. Simply that.
HOw will this get traction? This is why we are here, Folks. Now that we have the rant our of ur blood, lets get busy and define what we really want in a candidate and go and find one that adheres to those qualifications. We just might have to make it ourselves out of the carbon that made our own souls.
Here in VA there’s a governor’s race this year. The Republican is your standard culture of life, tax cutting, let’s build more highways type. He’s a schmuck to be honest.
The Dem is our current lieutenant governor. He’s not a fire in the belly kind of guy, he’s very moderate. Not a true DLC type, but here’s what some people have a problem with… he’s not pro-choice. However, he is not pro-criminalization. He thinks a decision made between a woman and her dr is their decision and govt has no place in that conversation. He’s also for sex ed (including abstinence) and access to birth conrol and health care for women.
This stance I can live with because the alternative of having the republican in office would be much worse. Especially if Roe V Wade gets overturned.
I’m picking my battles carefully this time. Dems need to keep this state and the feasibility of a true progressive winning here is none at the moment.
and you’re probably getting overcharged – is that truly progressive candidates cannot get elected on a large scale in this country because the media will not allow it.
Dean ran out of momemtum not because of “The Scream”, but because the press kept hammering home the idea that he was not “electable”. People from the real “left” are never taken seriously and are usually not even included in the process. Talking-head TV shows present someone from the right against someone from the slightly-less-right.
When the television anchor talking about your candidate has a smirk on his or her face it presents a huge obstacle.
These are all difficult and complex matters you’re discussing. I guess there aren’t any blanket answers, but here’s how I look at it: When RFK was killed, I voted for him anyway in 1968 as a protest vote. Then I watched Nixon squeak into office, and the Vietnam war continued, and then Watergate. I knew I could never do that again, until I was ready to opt out of the process.
Where I am now the Green party is very active, and on principle they derided Gore as a corporate candidate, playing into the hands of the Republicans. People genuinely believed there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Some even asked me later, how did you know Bush would be this bad? That question reflects part ideology and part laziness.
The answer in this case is: yes, both Gore and Bush were candidates of big money interests, and yes, there is a world of difference between them as Presidents. As people, as leaders, and especially in which constituencies they would listen to at all.
As for what to do now, it seems to me that you work as hard as you can for the most progressive candidates without totally alienating acceptable alternatives. If the progressive wins the primary or otherwise becomes the party candidate, great. If not,a progressive candidate with energetic backing can influence “moderate” candidates. If your heart is so much with the progressive or third party candidate that you can’t move on, that’s your right and your personal decision.
To me it’s timing. You go for the best for as long as it’s practical. Then you go for the better. To me it’s not the lesser of two evils. It’s the better of the two alternatives, because one of them is going to get the job, and either help or hurt a lot of people.
Re Hillary, you say “f*ck her.” But based on your arguments you’ll vote for her if the party chooses her as the candidate. Even if you disagree with every single position she takes. That’s the problem with this whole line of argument: If the candidate is a Democrat, hold your nose and vote for her.
running for cover…
Me too, Catnip.
When we become a more attractive source of campaign funds than the alternative (spending 4 hours a day whoring on the phone) we have our voice heard first.
Exactly right. Let’s buy our country back.
Let’s create the organization and the financing and vet the candidate instead of waiting for a candidate to come courting.
My position about 2008 is this. The hopeful who does most to get a Democratic majority in the Senate and the House from a 50-state strategy is worthy of consideration. The candidate who pursues an elaborate “strategery” of which states are winnable and thus deserving of their presence and which are not will not get my support. And the state and local politicians in North Carolina who run away from the national party will not get my support.
Please don’t shoot – I’m just a Canadian.
Upon first reading, there are several points I disagree with. The first is this:
Now, that statement can be seen two ways (or maybe more). First of all, I understand the concept of powerlessness from the 12 step program perspective ie. you have to admit you’re powerless in order to become humble so you can remedy your situation. That’s not what you’re talking about here, though.
The second definition of “powerlessness” is that of defeat and that is how you’re using it. In that sense, if you believe you’re defeated before you’ve even begun, you might as well give up. Do you really beleive the left is currently “powerless”? I sure don’t – unless you measure power by who holds the administration and congress, then, okay,.you are powerless. Don’t confuse that with utter powerlessness on a grand scale though.
You want to leave history behind. Guess what? You not only can’t do that, but you do it to your own detriment. The left has far too many trailblazers and heros whose messages and visions are still very relevant – even moreso these days. Those voices cannot be forgotten or there will be hopelessness. You have to know that just as things have changed in the past, they can change once again. The next step is figuring out how to do that.
I won’t comment on the DLC and Casey issues but what I will say, generally, is this: the Liberals in Canada moved to the center under the lead of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien dring the 90s. We have a new Prime Minister now, Paul Martin, who – although he can still be described as a centrist – is much more progressive than Chretien. The fact that we have multiple parties and a current minority gov’t are factors in how the Liberals have started to move back to the left the past couple of years, however, the main factor in that move is the leader – Paul Martin (who, I might add, has been heavily pressured by the left in this country to return to a more socialist agenda). He wants a more progressive agenda and he’s very tough on his caucus to ensure they move that way too – despite how centrist or conservative some of them might be.
So, the moral of my story is, although you state that money is power (which it is in too many circumstances), in politics there is nothing like a leader or two who can whip (that’s why they call them whips) the rest of the herd into shape when they digress from moving ahead.
Afaic, your Dems need a strong message. They need a strong platform that all Americans are familiar with. They need to stand for their leftist social, environmental and justice related principles proudly. They may have to sacrifice some cash, but there are other sources who will fill in those monetary gaps if people see that the party is united under one message. From where I sit, the party is very disorganized and that ought to be the first goal to aim for – clear organization. It’s up to your leaders to point the way.
But…what the hell do I know?
That’s about it for now…
And another reason the Liberals are slowly moving back towards the left: Canadians have made it clear that they’re through with the Conservative party’s shit. But the money’s still on the side of the Conservatives. So Martin’s slowly steering his party left despite where the money’s coming from.
is the assumption that the problem with the DLC and the “centrists” is that they won’t do what we want them to if they are elected. That is a problem, but the reason we may not be able to word with them as nicely as you wish us to is that they can’t win elections. As you say, winning is what we need to do, period. If I believed that taking a DLC/Kerry/Clinton approach meant a Dem win, I’d probably reluctantly do what I could to help.
But the real problem is not what they’d do if elected, it’s that they don’t get elected. We don’t get good candidates because the DLC crowd backs mealymouth losers, and their consultants turn even potentially effective, well-intentioned candidates into mealymouth losers: witness Gore and (maybe) Kerry.
I firmly believe that a good populist campaigner who can communicate effectively how traditional Dem values offer a better life to all Americans, while the GOP seeks only the shameful enrichment of the parasitic few, can win even in marginally red states and districts. I think Dean would have won, I think Kerry and Gore would have won if they’d stayed true to their beliefs and not tried to keep the asshole right happy.
It really ain’t that hard to communicate to the Nascar dad and the suburban soccermom that stacking the deck so the rich and corporate always win is bad for all the rest of us, that the GOP’s poisoned air and water and soil aren’t just hurting black kids or poor kids or gay kids, but all kids. That making America a world pariah nation is inviting Living Hell down on every one of us. That we are only as free as the least free person in America.
As long as the DLC is in charge we won’t get to test my theory. Maybe Dean can make the difference. In the meantime, I absolutely agree, Boo, about the timid and the defeatists in our own ranks. Probably the most dispiriting and enraging thing I find on sites like this one is the way every idea about what the Dems should be doing gets drowned in a chorus of “but then They would…(fill in the blank). Or that would never get passed in (fill in the blank). So we just follow the same recipe for defeat over and over again, and our party and our cause more and more just fade into the background, because that’s what camoflage is for.
In short, it ain’t about internecene squabbling, it’s about freeing ourselves to win. The only nationwide failure as monumental as Bush is the DLC and its allies. If they can come up with good candidates, fine, work with them. Otherwise, don’t back no losers, and don’t help mealymouth losers lose a little less badly.
My head is spinning from all of this (as well as a crazy day at work) so maybe I just can’t grasp it all. But my solution feels pretty simple: work your ass off in the primaries for a candidate you can support with passion. Screw the pragmatics and go for it!! If you make it to the general election – hooray for you. If not, I do think you have to hold your nose and vote for the least objectionable candidate. To not do so is to loose any voice and you could wind up with another Bushco.
I also think Boo’s discussion about the alternative funding strategy is key. As long as corporate America buys our government – they will continue to get their payoffs – no matter which party. Our options are either to have public financing of elections – or we have to find a way to challenge the corporate money.
Late, late, late to the party, so I’ll make this brief. I agree, peeling off individual interest groups and focusing on failures is not the way. We must actively compose a strategy for going forward. And we must believe in our own ability to succeed.
I think a big mistake today is everyone’s obsessing about Bush. I do it, too, and it’s not helping us.
Why?
Because (news flash!) he’s a lame duck, and no more elections are going to be about him. Bush is over. Only the details of how he’s removed from office — impeachment or retirement. At most we got a little more than 3 years more of him, and his effectiveness is dropping.
If you ask me, we should be looking at the Congress. We should be looking at the statehouses. We should be looking at the city councils and county boards.
And we should be looking at the folks who seem to be positioning for the 2008 White House run.
Personally, I think Gingrich is probably the most dangerous Republican out there. Why? Because he’s going against the religious nutjobs and speaking about pragmatics. Compared to everyone else out there, he’s talking plain talk and making fucking too much sense. I say, “What? This is the Newt???”
It’s scary because this guy is anti-choice. This guy was a leader in putting out the Contract On America. Our fucked up, half-dissembled (but no less costly) government is thanks in large part to his efforts.
And he’s not an obvious twit like Frist or jackass like Santorum or chucklehead like Rudy or nimrod like Wilson.
While we’re all obsessing on Bush, the Republicans are getting ready for 2006 and 2008. And if we want to change things, we have to focus on that NOW, or we’ll find ourselves back in this rut of reacting instead of making things happen.
And I’m with you, Boo. That starts with progressive values, standing up for something instead of playing the pandering game, which the DLC has played so well to such a dearth of victories.
You’re absolutely right about where the Dems need to be looking, forward rather than back.
Proactive rather than reactive — and Boo has really made a reactive case here with the subpoena power argument.
Funny, you laid out a very nice contra argument, but then said you agreed with Boo.
I also agree with you about Gingrich.
I remember a series of diaries by somebody named Tom Kertes in which he basically extolled all the “virtues” of Mrs. Clinton and said he was beginning a draft Hillary campaign.
Was that an example of a professional political consultant acting (dishonestly) as a non professional blogger or was the disclosure by Mr. Kertes total and complete without any hidden agendas?
This is not a rhetorical question. I am interested in the answer, especially from Mr. Kertes, but from anyone with first hand knowledge.
Its just my opinion, but the Democrats need to move more towards the future, as in what we will do to help the (increasingly) large mass of poor people escape their poverty, and by explaining how helping the poor will not only benefit the poor themselves, obviously, but also the nation as a whole. Increased economic security is vital for maintaining national security. Making poor people wealthier is smarter than making already wealthy people wealthier.
Mrs. Clinton would not be a good nominee in 2008, in my opinion. Nor has she really even done enough for the party to “owe” her the nomination, except perhaps for her prodigious fundraising abilities.
The party has done more for her than vice versa, in my opinion.