BostonJoe asked me whether there was anything we could do to make the Democratic Party into a winning party that was also a party worthy of progressive support.
Many people are flirting with the idea of joining third parties or abstaining from voting, or are just deeply disillusioned and want some kind of strategy for positive activism.
Meteor Blades, who I happen to agree with about 99% of the time, has an interesting debate going on about the merits of taking slim control of Congress. Would it be an improvement or a curse that would dim our prospects in 2008?
I have written about aspects of this issue before. And I can’t rehash everything here or this article will be way too long.
So, a brief recap:
Third parties are limited in what they can achieve. Third parties have been useful at several points in our nation’s history. But, aside from the emergence of the Republican Party in the Civil War era, third parties have served mainly two positive purposes. They have pushed an issue from the fringes of public debate into the forefront of debate, and they have caused the major party they are most ideologically aligned with to lose. In 1912 the Bull Moose Party took down a Republican government that had ruled since William McKinley became president in 1897. In 1912, the Republican party introduced primaries in many states and Teddy Roosevelt won the majority of them. Nevertheless, he was denied the nomination. Teddy split off from the Republicans and formed the Progressive Party (nickname: Bull Moose). He came in a strong second place and by splitting the Republican vote he ushered Woodrow Wilson into office.
The Progressive Party pretty much went out of business in 1916, as they reunited with the GOP to try to take down Wilson. Yet, through their efforts women’s suffrage, which had been supported by neither Wilson or Taft in 1912, became a major issue. It was finally constitutionally granted in 1920.
Eugene Debs’s Socialist Party was largely responsible for pushing policies that eventually became part of the New Deal.
And Ross H. Perot was successful in both throwing George H.W. Bush out of office and in bringing the issue of budget deficits to the forefront of public consciousness.
Third parties have their place. And there is a great need right now for a third party to emerge as a serious challenge to the policies of neo-conservatism that predominate in the Bush administration.
But, now is not the right time for a third party challenge from the left. Many people feel that the Democratic Party needs a progressive challenge because it has become too beholden to corporate donors and is increasingly pandering to the (seeming) rise in social conservatism. Yet, the Democratic Party is not in power. Of the two major parties, they are not the one that is derserving of public backlash for the policies of the Bush era. And it is impossible to form a progressive coalition that will not have the primary effect of punishing the Democrats more than it punishes the Republicans.
So, how can we move forward when we are caught in this trap?
It is too late to do much before the 2006 elections. But, there is plenty of time to mobilize for 2008. Here are my ideas.
Rather than start a new party or join an existing one, progressive Democrats should create a split within the Democratic Party. To do this, they need to create an alternate party platform. The platform should be based on a few core issues that have broad agreement among Progressives. It should not attempt to solve all the world’s problems. I envision something similar to but more sophisticated than Grover Norquist’s pledge.
I will toss out a few ideas as examples.
1. For passing a federal law making access to abortion a right of all American women.
2. For banning cruel and unusual punishment and abolishing the death penalty.
3. For comprehensive lobbying reform, including bans on moving from public office into a lobbying position for a period of years.
4. For publicly financed elections as part of a comprehensive campaign finance reform.
5. For repealing and rewriting the Patriot Act and curbing illegal domestic surveillance.
6. For universal single-payer health care.
7. For stem-cell research.
8. Accept evolution and global warming as valid theories and will act accordingly.
You can add or subtract from this list. The very fact that there is a list is the most important thing.
We would ask any Democrat running for office to commit to our platform. And, if they agree to sign on to our platform we will dub them Progressive Democrats. If they do not agree, we will run a primary contender against them.
We will use the power of the netroots to help finance our Progressive Democrats in their primary runs.
Many incumbents will be persuaded by this threat to sign our alternate platform. Those that will not will be better financed. To combat the money imbalance we will run a national campaign, where all the insurgent Progressive Democrats help publicize each other until everyone is asking “is she a Democrat or a Progressive Democrat?”
We are doing something similar to this in Philadelphia. You can read a little about it here. The Philly for Change group (basically leftover Deaniacs) has launched an insurgency in league with the non partisan Committee of Seventy to take over the vacant committeeperson positions. They, in turn, can vote out the Ward leaders, as Chris Bowers’ group just did.
I could go on and expand on this idea but I would rather just leave it as barebones and get your feedback on it.
Some potential problems that immediately come to mind are: whether a group as disparate and underfinanced as the left-wing blogosphere could ever agree to a platform. And, how would the Party respond? For example, would they ever allow us to put the term ‘Progressive Democrat’ on a primary ballot? Let me know whether you think anything productive could come of this idea.
For the most part, I have stayed out of this debate because I have felt a little isolated as an American ex-pat in Canada.
I have been thinking along a line similar to what you post here. Pressure from progressives who decide to take over the corpse of the Democratic Party would clearly shift the party to the left, just as the far right did to the Republican Party. There are many of us clearly angry and motivated enough to make this happen.
The idea of a third party exerting external pressure on the Dems is, however, intriguing. A third party could re-enforce the Democrats’ internal shift to the left, if not hasten the move.
As I have stated before, some of us progressives are going to have to start running ourselves. School boards, city councils, union positions. to paraphrase Ghandi, we have to be the change we want to see in the world.
A two-pronged approach could get us a party that progressives could feel good about backing.
Disability Rights. Have been kicking an idea around re: how to present that. Don’t have it completely ready to write down yet. But, I still favor going 3rd party.
I think your idea is a great one, though I am not at all certain even a measurable number of incumbent Dems would sign on, let alone a significant number of them.
I disagree. We would start out with about 62 house members. check it out.
That would be a pretty good start.
It makes more sense (to me) to do both, a 3rd party and what you have suggested. My logic is as follows: too many people (me included) are tired of the bullshit games that are being played. So why not split?
Third parties have brought ideas to the forefront and have seen them adopted, as you have illustrated. I’ve read everything that you wrote w/an open mind and I’m either misunderstanding it or am missing something. Could you clarify this please?
if you split (enough of) you split you will not see an end to Republican rule, but, rather, further validation of Republican rule. They can do all these things and still stay in power. That must mean that is what America wants, believes in, and stands for.
Is that what you want? Or do you want to fight to improve the Democratic Party at the same time you repudiate the Republican Party in the strongest possible terms?
How would you suggest the democrat party work to draw more independent voters, new and old, back into the process? I think that first split has already happened out of frustration and disillusionment over the years.
Been around this before. And the fact of the matter is that we disagree on a means to accomplish the same goal.
Do I want repub rule? No. Do I want to keep being treated like crap by the local dems who say one thing and do the opposite? No.
What I do want to do is also, and this is may what have been overlooked, is repudiate the current crop of dems and wanna be dems that are reps in disguise. And, from where I sit (MI 8th), 3rd party is the only way to do that. (Clarification: That is the perception that I have been getting from my part of the 8th for awhile.)
Here is what I am trying to convey to you and to everyone that is making the same kind of arguments that you are making:
Let’s say we had my plan already in place. Jim Marcinkowski is asked to sign on to our platform. He refuses. We find someone in your district who will sign it. Then we help funnel money and publicity to their campaign on the condition that they will not back out prior to election day.
If Jim wins the primary anyway, then he has still learned a lesson. He has had to spend time, effort, and treasure that he otherwise would not have had to spend. The next time, if there is a next time, he will be more tempted to sign the pledge.
But, when it comes to the general election and it Mike Rogers vs. Jim Marcinkowski then you have a choice between someone utterly committed to cleaning up the crimewave that is the modern day GOP versus a person who is utterly committed to covering it up and allowing it to continue. And that is not a very tough choice if you are willing to put the health of the country over your policies desires and preferences.
People putting their own personal desires ahead of the politicians, corporate rule, even the war on terror.
For instance, Street Kid needs her medicine. She does tend to put this personal desire above even the careers of some of the most pragmatic and shrewd politicians.
And there are others, who may not post to blogs on the internets, but their selfishness and lack of concern for the importance of Democratic politicians maintaining shrewd and pragmatic positions is no less, even though many of them could not even name one politician.
There are people who need housing, people who need food, people whose income is insufficient to purchase medical treatment at all, much less a prescription.
There are people who need to be liberated from torture camps, people whose towns have been overrun by a bestial horde of torturers and sexual predators.
And in almost every such case, even though, again, they may not be present on the internets, there is no question that they put their personal desires ahead of the needs of the politicians.
And some would even suggest that it would be healthier for the country if more people did so.
And some would even suggest that it would be healthier for the country if more people did so.
The voice of reason–love you, DF!
Ok, lets say your plan was in place. From what you have written, and what Marcinkowski said (the few questions that he did answer), he would not sign that pledge. So, why support him anyway?
And I will say more: If those are the only choices that I have, Marcinkowski or Rogers, I would rather see Rogers back in office–at least you know in advance that you are going to get screwed. And I will tell you right now, I have absolutely no intention of voting for either one.
the health of the country
You nailed it. Just tell me what is wrong with supporting a candidate/party that advocates a single-payer health care system?
Since the dems don’t the hell with them! Why is that so difficult to understand?
And, actually, I am starting to get a bit irritated because people who do not live in this district are telling me what is best for it. I’ve lived here for years, I know what’s going on! I’m not stupid, for crying out loud.
Would like to point out one thing–although I am sick of the dems and their bs, I am giving them one last chance to show that they actually give a damn about people with disabilities. Did you catch the last diary I wrote w/all of the links to my Medicare D diaries? In it, I am requesting people start writing LTE’s and contacting their elected officials to bring more attention to Medicare D(isaster) than it has been getting. If the dems act on it, they will have partially redeemed themselves, at least I will listen to what they have to say. Votes have to be earned, not taken for granted. That is the whole point–they haven’t been.
You are putting an issue that is near and dear to your heart above all other considerations. And I am saying that we are in an unique situation in America right now. A lot of people apparantly don’t think so. They think that illegal domestic surveillance, the end of transparant government, suspect elections, legalized torture, pre-emptive war with countries that do not threaten us, secret gulags, spying on peace activists, unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility, and more, are all par for the course and something the Democrats would do too.
As vitally important as disability rights are, and as crucial health and women’s rights are, we simply have to put an end to this bigger policies that absolutely destroying this country, it’s legacy, it’s potential for good, and ultimately people all over the world.
I don’t know how to say it any better so I will continue to say it over and over. He must stop Bush and his GOP enablers. The midterms are our last chance to repudiate them. It has to be done.
I just cannot see how anyone can fail to participate in this project because they are upset that the Dems are not suffiently attentive to their interests.
I admit it. I don’t get it. I don’t like making comparisons to Hitler, but it does seem somewhat like a Jew refusing to vote against Hitler because the alternative didn’t support raising the minimun wage. I mean WTF?
At some point, we have to put our divisions behind us. If a libertarian ex-intelligence officer is sick to death of the way this country is being run and tarnished and he wants to go to Washington to help put some sanity back into government, then I am going to call him an ally.
Sorry to rant. I’m frustrated too.
Putting aside the specific special interest issues for a moment, can you see where others don’t have any faith that a majority will change any of the latter issues you listed? It’s primarily the enabling of the past 4 or 5 years that generate the doubt.
no. I can’t.
Not a single one of things I mentioned would have been done by a Democratic president. The only possible exception would be some increased domestic surveillance in the aftermath of 9/11 (and definitely not on the scale it is being done now).
It is manifestly NOT THE CASE that Democrats would continue these policies.
Furthermore, many Democrats that are running for office are significantly more radicalized by Bush than the dingbats that are already in Washington.
Yes, some of our candidates suck. But we need them to win as part of a larger landslide that will take power away from the GOP.
Remember, Rick Santorum is a major major player. Mike Rogers is a major player. They need to lose so we can look the world in the eye agains without shame.
It’s my belief that 9/11 would not have happened under Gore and that the event is far more complex and insidious than the official story claims. It goes into the general gwot and it’s manipulation over the past 10 years, but the last 6 specifically. Without getting all convoluted here, the damaging policies that are in place and need corrected were put into place by cooperative Democrats. It happened a little at a time but they bear responsibility too. The lack of support in challenging these policies makes me doubt that any monumental change will occur with a majority.
What can we get to believe that this is even the goal of the incumbents and candidates?
I would that disability rights and needs would come under the heading of universal healthcare.
Have an idea about that kicking around, not what you said specifically though. Needs more time to jell before I can write it!
You are putting an issue that is near and dear to your heart above all other considerations.
SO IS MARCINKOWSKI!!!
The two times that I have heard him speak, all he ever talks about is the outing of Valerie Plame. Nothing about domestic issues–zero, zip, zilch, nada! He is more interested in his objective than the concerns of his potential constituents!! And, the second time I heard him speak, domestic issues were pushed aside.
Look BooMan, I am not questioning his capacity as a former intelligence officer–IMO, he would not be a good representative, as the doesn’t show any concern for those in the district, at least not that I have seen!
However, as an advisor to a conresscritter, he would probably rock!
Now, back to what you said:
I admit it. I don’t get it. I don’t like making comparisons to Hitler, but it does seem somewhat like a Jew refusing to vote against Hitler because the alternative didn’t support raising the minimun wage. I mean WTF?
I can only speak for myself in this instance, but what I gathered from several of the post-JM threads and the giving up on the dems threads is that people don’t trust the current leadership (for obvious reasons) and do not trust an ex-Reaganite who is suddenly a democrat! People want someone they can trust.
And, being repeatedly let down by the dems when we are on our computers hours at a time, making phone calls, writing, sending emails (to name a few) that express our views…well, the Alito confirmation was the last straw for many.
People were working their asses off and got screwed again. Who needs the aggravation? I don’t. Others don’t. And I also do not want to work w/a local party that behaves in the same manner. (More than a few things that you don’t know.) Safe to assume that others feel the same way, IMO.
I just cannot see how anyone can fail to participate in this project because they are upset that the Dems are not suffiently attentive to their interests.
BooMan, it has not been suddenly inattentive. It has been going on for too long and people are sick of it, plain and simple. Another possibility is that there is more of a split in the democratic party than many realize…I just thought of that, actaully. And, it is possible that, if in fact, that is the case, a third party influence would be more welcome than many think.
Now that I am thinking aobut the lastsentence that I wrote, things are clearer to me. And on another point that you mentioned:
illegal domestic surveillance, the end of transparant government, suspect elections, legalized torture, pre-emptive war with countries that do not threaten us, secret gulags, spying on peace activists, unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility
And I will give it to you straight on that–People don’t give a damn about whatyou listed becuase they are more concerned with issues that directly effect them
And there are so many more…And, I say this as a resident of MI 8th–Marcinkowski doesn’t give a damn about these!!! That is also very shocking to me, as the neighborhood that he is from is a couple of miles from the area where I grew up–both working class neighborhoods. And, as Marcinkowski and I are both around the same age, it is difficult to comprehend how our values could be so different. Come to think of it, I really want to know the answer to that. (But I am not holding my breath!)
I am not saying that you should not vote for someone else in the primary (if possible) and I am not saying that you should be happy with your choices. I have Casey to deal with, which I am fighting against.
You say that people don’t give a damn about the issues I raised. You’re wrong. The only reason your prospective congressman is a Republican is over those types of issues. And there a millions like him that are very comfortable, that pay more in taxes than most people earn, that are not feeling a bit of a pinch, and they are ashamed of their country when they travel abroad.
Millions more are educated and attuned to the news and they do not believe in torture or pre-emptive war.
I mean let’s be serious for a moment. No one in the rest of the world gives much of a fuck whether or not we have universal health care, social security benenfits, or a higher minimum wage. They care about the death penalty, torture, war-mongering, and irresponsible energy use and fiscal policy, and warmongering.
Those are big issues facing the world, and they are depending on us, the lonely left, to do something about them.
We have an enormous responsibility and I don’t care if Chuck Schumer doesn’t get it. He can get out of the way.
Domestic policy is important. Enourmously important. But it cannot trump law enforcement. We either retain our rights and restrain Bush, or we are all fucked and no one will remember whether or not domestic spending for this or that program went up or got slashed.
And when confronted with choices like this, it is my opinion an easy call. No more strategic defeats. The time for that is either in the past or in the future. This election is about the legacy of Bushism. Either it was an anomaly that we can atone for, or he actually support it in 3 straight elections. What is it going to be? What will people tell their children?
I didn’t like the Dem’s candidates position on the minimum wage so I didn’t vote against the party responsible for torturing people?
No one in the rest of the world gives much of a fuck whether or not we have universal health care, social security benenfits, or a higher minimum wage.
I know my part of the 8th district, and from what I know, I can tell you that you are 100% wrong by making the above statement. No one gives a fuck about the death penalty, torture, war-mongering, and irresponsible energy use and fiscal policy, and warmongering. Domestic issues are more important! That is why there is so much apathy in this country–everything is focused on what appears to many to be abstract concepts as opposed to reality!
As I have explained before (somewhere) the 8th is a huge district, 4 counties. The demographics are deceptive!!!! And this county is changing, and that is not adequately been brought up. Specific examples:
Little things, yes, but don’t tell me they don’t make a difference!
More facts:
And that is what is not been adequately addressed.
IMO and the opinion of others who have heard him speak, Marcinkowski is the wrong candidate to represent a changing district, as he is not concerned w/his possible constituents, and is unwilling to listen to their concerns because he doesn’t give a fuck!
“rest of the world” means: other countries than the United States. So, using your district to rebut what I am saying doesn’t make sense. Yes, in your district and all across this country there are many apathetic people.
And it doesn’t help when we run candidates that do not address their concerns about the cost of energy, health care, education, and more. We agree on that completely.
But, what I am trying to say is that all of that is not important when it is compared to the much larger issues that too many people are apathetic about.
When I talk about the rest of the world I am trying to point out that it is vitally important that the American people repudiate what Bush has done at the ballot box for a whole host of reasons that the world understands quite well.
If people vote against their congressman because of his policy of supporting Bush’s domestic policies, then I am fine with that. Good. I would vote against him for that reason alone.
But, it is more an issue of whether or not it is okay for any Republican to remain in office is he/she has been unwilling to resign in protest over the war, over torture, over insane fiscal policies. In other words, not over his social security plan. The crimes of the GOP effect everyone everywhere.
And whether or not Americans care or not about how the rest of the world is affected by the Bush administration, they should care. And it should outweigh any consideration about whether or not canidate x.y.z might not be an ideal candidate.
it doesn’t help when we run candidates that do not address their concerns about the cost of energy, health care, education, and more.
EXACTLY–people are apathetic because their concerns are not being addressed! And, a candidate who specifically addresses them is what is needed, not more of the same!
Look, I do not disagree with you re: gwb’s admin and all. In fact, I am one of your strongest supporters on that. But, the rest of this district is more concerned with survival, than the perception of the world toward the US.
That is the point that I have been trying to make. And, the fact of the matter is that there are many in the district, at least my part of it, who share my view re: domestic policy taking precedence over foreign policy (and I realize that I am using the words foreign policy loosely).
okay, peace Street Kid.
I understand that no one appreciates having someone put a gun to their head and being told to vote for a DINO. Believe me I know.
What I am trying to do is put things into a larger perspective.
I don’t want to win this election so we can make important changes in our countries wealth distribution. I want that in every election. This election is very, very important for reasons that totally transcend local issues.
Now, most people are not concerned about these larger issues and that is very, very unfortunate. And so, you’re right, an effective campaign must involve the very local issues that people are focused on. But I am not talking to them right now, I am talking to you.
And you are well aware of what it could mean if John Conyers and Pat Leahy were in charge of the judiciary committees instead of James Sensenbrenner and Arlen Specter.
Alito would not get through the committee to the floor and no filibuster would be necessary. Alberto Gonzales would not smirk and make jokes when called to testify UNDER OATH about illegal wiretapping. People would be held to account for authorizing torture.
So, unless you are totally indifferent to these realities you should seriously consider lending a hand to whomever runs against Mike Rogers.
IN the meantime, I wrote this diary as a way to suggest that we might be able to build something that will prevent us from having so many shitty choices in the future.
if John Conyers and Pat Leahy were in charge of the judiciary committees instead of James Sensenbrenner and Arlen Specter.
I know all that. It still seems to me that a combination of 3rd party and what you wrote would be the way to go in shaping the future.
As I have said to others, it appears we have the same goals in mind, but prefer different methods to achieve them.
I’m just having a hell of a lot of trouble w/all of this, for a combnation of reasons. And I did not mean to tear your head off, sorry if it came across that way.
Peace, BooMan.
I find that most of those advocating third party splits, have never tried to be involved in the Democratic Party. Why not get groups of like minded friends together and become a force in your community?
People who have not tried it, really have no basis for acting like armchair generals, quoting the history of third parties and so on.
If we are serious about the environment, reproductive rights, stopping war and so on, this means being serious enough to aquire sufficient power to make policy.
The recent history of third party politics is that they are protest votes at best. Running in Democratic primaries is a far more effective way of getting ideas debated and taken seriously than running quixotic campaigns whose main purpose is to send “messages” or present “alternatives.” Any alternative worth presenting is worth getting enough power to make it real. Anything else is just shouting into the ether.
I’m intrigued enough by this idea to let it marinate before saying more. But since there already is a progressive caucus, can you point to any successes they’ve had in pulling an issue to the left? I’m curious if there’s any “experimental data” showing that this approach can work (or doesn’t – either way might be telling).
It does not compromise the crusades, those would proceed as planned, as would kidnappings to all the various torture camps, anyone anywhere could still be seized and held for perpetuity with no charges or recourse.
Which would make it very easy to explain to Americans that despite their commitment and desire for all to have health care, etc. naturally the war on terror must take precedence. This is something most Americans already understand, and have the Resolve to make any necessary sacrifices.
Plus, as BooMan points out, all they have to do is make promises. Democrats are no stranger to that!
In fact, they don’t even have to make promises, just skilfully worded speeches that leave room for anyone thinking of not sending them money to imagine that they secretly agree with the listener.
No it doesn’t really offer anything to those who are strongly opposed to corporate rule, but that is such a very small minority, and most of them don’t have any money to send anyway.
You’ve laid out an interesting carrot strategy, but, what’s the stick? What happens if/when the Progressive Democrat loses? Do you suppert the vichy D? Therein lies the seed for continued assignment to the fringe. “Humor the lefties, they’ll get in line on election day.” Sorry, that’s not an option for me any more.
In my musings, it is the vote. That is ultimately the arbiter of this or any other approach, it is the only currency that has merit. Work for Progressives in the primaries, in the committees, financing etc., but when the mainstream party kicks you in the teeth, let them lose…I said it yesterday:
WHAT IF THEY HELD AN ELECTION AND NOBODY CAME?
Peace
I think you are shortchanging the plan.
When you force a candidate to take a stand, you may succeed in getting a promise out of them that they will be reluctant to break.
In such cases, you have moved a candidate to the left and put a little sticky tape on their shoes.
Some candidates will decide that they do not want the hassle of primary opponent and will agree to the pledge. This is how Grover Norquist is so effective on the no-new-taxes issue.
Secondly, when we do have primary contenders they will not back out like Paul Hackett just did. If they are asked to quit they will scream like hell and use it for all it’s worth.
Third, if we get a reputation for straight-talk and unruliness it will appeal to a lot of people.
Fourth, if we win a few primaries we may usher in a whole kind of Democrat.
One reason the 1994 elections were so weird was that a lot of the Freshmen republicans were not even politicians. They were car salesman, and hardware store owners, even Sonny Bono (who had at least been a mayor).
Fifth, these candidates will not be financed by the traditional donors, but opposed to them.
So, the idea is to change the culture of the party by insisting on a commitment to core values and ignoring the party structure to do it.
I don’t mean to shortchange the idea, I merely point out that, in my mind, the absence of a consequence is a weak point.
“Do you support the vichy D?” If, the progressive loses, do you have the confidence that the ‘sticky tape’ will not be scraped off at the earliest opportunity? What’s the fall-back position? I’d really like to know.
Getting a reputation for straight talk and unruliness is ‘barking at the wind’ if you don’t also have a reputation for ruthlessness. That is what differentiates the Rove’s and Norquist’s from us. There has to be a price, there has not been.
We can demand change, we can move candidates all over the game board, recruit non-politicians, scream like hell (that’s worked so well to date) etc.. But we will not change the culture of the party until/unless we exact a penalty for actions that are not in the interest of the agenda of core values.
This charade of governance will last only as long as it is allowed free rein. IMO, this is not going to be a pleasant exercise, it will get much worse before it gets any better. I prefer to not prolong the inevitable.
Peace
We are not that far apart, inside vs. outside. I agree with the signed pledge notion as a necessary precondition for support, but not working from within the Party. Better I think to stand outside the structure with a pledge of our own: we’ll support the candidates best-suited for the job, irrespective of party affiliation.
We don’t crash the gate, they open it and come out to talk. You’ve started it here with a draft pledge for candidates. The corollary is our basic “principles”. We’ve had this discussion before, and maybe now’s the time to flesh that part out.
this is now cross-posted.
Invest money and effort in a true wingnut third party. Split enough votes off the GOP and . . .
But seriously, we do need to start from the ground up — getting involved in local Dem parties and making our issues and our voices heard at that level. We should be runing progressive candidates for every local office we can.
Hey, the rabid anti-immigration forces tried an unfriendly takeover of the Sierra Club board of directors not too long ago, so this isn’t as far fetched an idea as you might think.
Of course I’d be shocked, shocked if a small cabal of desperate progressives ever resorted to such Nixonian tactics, LOL.
I’m lacking hardcopy documentation and links, but here’s a shot at it from memory.
Back in the early 1900s the Republican party had total control of gov in ND. The Democrat opposition was very weak.
Then a third party came into being, calling themselves the Non-Partisan League.
Rather than join and bolster the D party, they, (being non-partisan) ran their own candidates against the Republican candidates in the primaries.
They had some success in getting their people in circa 1916-1918. WWI patriotism worked against the Non-partisan League as the latter favored staying out of the war, so the NPL lost momentum, and of course there were a great many forces riled up against them.
The NPL went into decline, but in 1956 joined the states Democrat party to become what remains today, North Dakota Democrat-NPL Party. And in 1960 we had our first Democrat-NPL governor. And the momentum of the Dem-NPL carried on relatively strong until the Reagan years. We’ve had D governors from 1961-1980;1985-1992;
It is commonly recognized that the NPL had a huge effect on our state, for example we have a state owned bank, and a state owned mill and elevator, and we had a No Corporate Farming law (I’m not sure what’s left of that latter now, but the former remain thriving entities.)
I’d like to find more information on how the NPL first attacked the Rs in the primary. If I do I’ll be sure to share it with BTrs.
All the above supplied for information and discussion purposes only and not meant to a statement from me on pro or con on any of the issues we are discussing here in this diary.
Hold their feet to the fire with one hand, and hold on to the only life raft with the other. There’s some security in there and some reduction of the risk of letting yet another wingnut slip into office. If it pushes the party to the left, so much the better.
How about adding something to reduce the tax burden of low-income folks? Though I can’t find it on his site, Wes Clark once proposed eliminating federal income taxes for thos with a family income of less than $50,000. What’s on his site now says “repeal Bush’s tax cuts for … those
making more than $200,000 annually.”
but how would this be different from MoveOn, PFA, and all the rest of the liberal/left outfits that try to put on the pressure? These groups already have the structure and fundraising ability, so how would what you propose be an improvement? I think it’s essential to clarify that first thing.
I think one of the lessons we can take from the Greens is that full direct democracy doesn’t work when you’re trying to build something. I think this is also a problem with MoveOn, where good ideas and ongoing development tends to be buried by rhetoric, special interests, and just plain pointless distractions. There would have to be some structure where serious discussion takes place within somewhat closed and stable groups with the aim of producing concrete proposals for wider discussion and voting. Whether this outfit ever acts as a political party, I’d propose that it model itself as a shadow party with the potential to come out of the shadow if necessary. Guerilla politics capable of working with established powers where beneficial, or of doing hit and run tactics where necessary.
So Boo, do you have a venue or a model for a venue in mind for this movement? The blog just ain’t gonna cut it. This discussion will scroll off and be forgotten in a couple days. The first necessity is a structure for intense, specific, and ongoing discussion leading to real-world blueprints. There will be a lot more to decide than just platform points. The good thing is, this doesn’t have to be all grandiose. Once the preliminaries are done, it could start by focusing on one congressional district, for example, as a laboratory. I have some ideas on that, but won’t go into them now.
In short, I think there’s potential to your idea if it can be rationalized as more than just another entry among all the other lib/left pressure groups. But first, it will have to have a home for ongoing discussion among folks who have a commitment to staying the course. Could be exciting. Let’s find a way to keep the idea alive.
I like your idea. It is weird how ideas coalesce — or pop out at the same time — or whatever. ND Dem and I were talking a good bit about synchronicity when I was out there for book a couple of weeks ago. And this proposal comes one day after a fellow in the peace group explained to me a group he was attending (the Progressive Democrats of America). I don’t know if it is exactly the same thing. But is sounds very similar. I am planning on going to one of their meetings.
But whether the same or different, I like your idea. I give you credit for proposing it (it is something that I don’t see all the time from people in your position on the blogosphere — blog owners/frontpagers, etc.). And I damn well think that 20-40 (or more) bloggers from the Booman Tribune could take a close look at it, do some planning, and push this plan toward reality. It is something. And if we don’t have something to fight for, we are just going to die. I know I could rally behind the idea generally. And I’m confident that with all the good minds here, we could come up with a solid Progressive platform that would be something worthy of our efforts.
Credit to you BooMan. I’m bookmarking this. Hope to blog about it, along with one of my own pet ideas early next week (sorry if I missed the boat on this issue — book signing in the bright lights of Battle Creek — home of all kinds of corn flakes — and they love the novel). Even sold a few to Republicans.
Thanks for taking the time to write about your thoughts.
it’s over at the orange place too.
It sounds like what I was trying to propose with my idea about disbanding the Democrats and reinventing them as the Progressives, or whatever. It includes my Core Principles idea. It doesn’t have the unwieldyness that would ensue in everything from changing the stationery to remembering you’re not a Democrat any more, except you are. And best of all, unlike my idea, it has a chance not only of being implemented, but actually accomplishing its objective.
I think I’ll drop my idea (which was more of a plea to “think outside the box” than anything else) and get behind something like this until I hear something better.
Maybe you will answer my question. Is this idea designed to draw independent and disillusioned dem voters back in for the 2006 election?
Whose idea? Mine or Booman’s? Whichever, I don’t have an answer to your question, but I think reaching out to disenfranchised voters is a key, especially the ones who think we are already under a Demopublican system and nothing they do will make a difference. They have to see that, while what the Democrats will do if they gain a majority is still something of an unknown, we know what the Republicans will do if they stay in power: Continue to pillage and loot the system, wreck the economy, kill our young men for no good reason, poison the environment, piss off our friends and . . . well, you get the picture.
I’m sorry I don’t have a good answer, other than, I don’t think this plan is specifically designed to draw in those voters, but I hope it does.
Thanks, that’s about what I got from it but I was hoping I was missing something. I’m all for anything that works.
I would vote for any Democrat that stated up front that they would fight tirelessly to get Single Payer Health coverage. No if, ands, or buts. There are coat-tails on this issue that would bring about a huge turn in American politics towards the left.
Boo: Like your analysis that a third party needs to develop from centrist GOP’ers, not the left. Have my doubts about “progressive” Democrats doing anything but carrying on a long time Democratic tradition of shooting ourselves in the foot. As I have said to some pond dwellers. I am too old to wait for a third party to develop and take hold. Don’t think I have that much time, not sure our country does, and from posts by Jerome, Steven D, Knoxville Progressive and others, don’t think our planet does either.
My signature line says where I am at. While some apparently view our diversity as a curse, I prefer to view it as our potential source of overwhelming strength. We need to be a party of inclusion. This of course creates challenges our political opposites do not have to deal with, but whoever said this was going to be easy?
Dada is right. There have to be consequences.
I think they need to lose at least one more, maybe two, elections before change will be allowed. The Republicans are going to kick their asses next fall anyway, as Bush pursues a faux pullout of Iraq and the compromised voter systems allow several more contrary-to-the-exit-polls suprises once again.
The present Democratic representatives and senators had better say every day in every way, loud and clear that they are going to fight to bring impeachment proceedings against both the president and vice-president.
I don’t want to hear about how doing so is a waste of time; I don’t want to hear about how doing so is impolitic. I want to see a demonstration of political will acknowledging that we have two sitting criminals in office who, for the sake of the country, must be removed.
Political will focused on the issue of impeachment is the most important factor that can unify the Democratic Party. After all, it worked for the Republicans. However, there is no political will in the Democratic party. Without political will, I doubt there is much will to win. And without that, there is no chance of winning.
To me the democratic party is like the battered wife syndome. They keep taking shit from the republicans over and over and over. They seemingly cant break the habit of it all. Even all the threatenings and payoffs and all that goes along with it. All the game playing. Those things they do hurts us children out here that didnt ask for this. They either have to get off the pot or else.
The democratic party has betrayed me once too many times. what is the saying fool me once……. NO more, sorry booman.. no more,,,until they can get their shit together they have not got my vote or my money. And I am independent to boot, so I can feel for those dems who feel worse than I do about all of this. Look as all the work an dmoney they have go to to push the dem party inthe right direction and to be slapped in the face and told they do not count!!!! There is something wrong with this…very sick thinking if you ask me. The ones we have now are not leading they are giving it all away.
Actually, I think the saying you were looking for was:
Exactly! And I refuse to set myself up for another betrayl!
And this is just MO, so take it with a grain of salt…
Political involvement, be it with candidates, parties, activist or interest groups, carries with it the constant risk of betrayal, or at the very least, feeling betrayed. Any time you get a group of people together who are trying to achieve something, there are huge disagreements about means/ends, there are personalities involved and all kinds of conflicting agendas. For me, whether it was worth it or not comes down to where the balance lies…were my interests or the interests I’m advocating advanced at all? Or was the betrayal pretty much a complete screwing?
At this point, I feel like we are on the USA Titanic. The ship of state is so huge and so unwieldy that it’s going to be really, really hard to avoid hitting that iceberg. There’s no way we are going to be able to put the ship on a course that’s going to take us where we’d really like to go. We are going to have to adjust course by degrees and try and miss the effin’ iceberg first. Otherwise, all the dreams we have of creating a more just and equitable society are going down into the freezing waters.
whether it was worth it or not comes down to where the balance lies…were my interests or the interests I’m advocating advanced at all?
That is exactly why I have had it w/the dems, because they haven’t been.
So what’s the alternative? I think that third parties can work on a local level, or you could choose to focus your involvement on advocacy groups that advance your interests. Those are productive options, and more than that, they may do more good overall than working through traditional Democratic party politics. I mean, there’s no reason you should focus your personal efforts on Democratic party politics. There are so many worthy causes, there’s plenty of work to go around.
But in terms of governing this country, I don’t think there’s time to get a viable third party movement off the ground to keep us from disaster. I just don’t see any practical way this could happen. And “choosing the perfect at the expense of the good” – well, all I have to say is, President Gore.
And I’m not dumping that whole thing on Nader, I’m really not. But I think that sort of revolutionary romanticism can be dangerous. And we absolutely MUST stop the Neocons. There’s nothing more important, IMO. The kinds of crises they’ve created, well, there isn’t all that much time to fix these problems before the problems become much, much worse. Look at what Bush has managed to do in six years! It’s kind of impressive, really, that these guys could fuck things up so immensely, so quickly.
At this point, I’ll settle for a little Clintonian triangulation – and I never even voted for Clinton!
I just want to get the bat-shit crazy people out of power, and take it from there.
What gets me the most is that people say take over the dems at the local level and then work up to the national level, but the Greens get laughed at. And I don’t, for one minute, buy that about those who voted Green in 2000 are responsible for gwb’s appointment as POTUS. It was a SCOTUS decision that is directly responsible for that.
How to put? I got aquainted with the whole Green mentality in 92 (and I have voted Green more than once). And while as I said, I don’t put all the blame on this, it didn’t help.
I mean, look at Al Gore. He’s a good, passionate, progressive guy. And I think our own lack of enthusiasm contributed to his not being in the White House right now.
I say this in full recognition that there’s plenty of blame to go around. But I don’t feel great, personally, that I took it for granted he’d win, that I didn’t do more on that campaign.
Again, this is just me.
The Greens need to prove that they can organize on a local level, then they won’t be laughable. I’m all for Greens organizing themselves as a progressive block. But when there’s no viable national candidate, and the only thing a Green candidate is going to do is siphon votes away from a Democratic, who at least I’m pretty sure is not going to get us involved in an incredibly immoral war in Iraq, where real people are dying and maimed every day?
Well, that’s where I draw the line, personally.
In the meantime, we stay busy rearranging the deckchairs.
š
SNORT!
I don’t know about anyone else here but I can still feel the spit from prowar patriots who thought I wasn’t patriotic enough for wanting to wait longer instead of invading Iraq. Those were not only Republicans that spit on me for questioning the need for pre-emptive war.
I hear ya rumi..I do so remember those days too. Not a very good feeling to have to remember huh? Tends to last and stay in the area of hard feelings somewhat. But just like the ones we have now in the dem party..they simply can not listen to anyone other than the ones who have the $$$$$
I don’t mean to be disruptive. I’ve made peace with past transgressions and I’m not into grudges much. I’m just very frustrated with our lack of genuine leadership.
At least I have a better idea of what’s expected of potential voters in regard to this site. Thanks Boo.
Since the first time I voted in 1970, virtually every vote I’ve cast has been primarily a vote against the candidate who I thought was demonstrably the worst of the two. (One notable exception was my vote for McGovern in 1972, an affirmative vote for him, not just a vote against Tyrannosaurus Nix). Maybe this makes me not particularly objective enough on this subject, but I have to say that, for me, the existential question in all this still remains the central question.
Does the possible short-term gain derived from voting in a Dem against a Repub even when that Dem doesn’t support even the basic principles one believes in outweigh the potential for long-term damage a succession of such votes can, and demonstrably does, lead to?
Or, more simply put, how much compromise is too much compromise; when does it become counterproductive?
I realize this is not exactly on point with respect to BooMan’s specific focus in this story, but, nevertheless, as a matter of fundamental understanding and strategy, it seems to me to be one of the main pivots around which the debate turns, (the other one being when do we put national or party interest over personal interest and what are the criteria by which we make such decisions).
Platforms are crap. Worse that useless because they beguile the guileless into believing there has been a discussion of issues and a commitment by candidates to this laundry list of every single want or need ever conceived of as good for manandwoman kind.
They are the size of urban phone books and nearly as exiting to read. They have become an albatross to candidates whose sole convention goal is to keep them as bland as possible to avoid having to excuse, explain or oppose a stand taken by the party.
So what if we took your idea and had an off-season convention (local, state, national – whatever we could pull off)- an unofficial Unconventional Convention as it were.
Each level could create its own agenda that it would promote through supporting candidates and supporting legislation that would implement the agenda.
My main point is that the process is as important as the short-term goal. Bring people back into the process of decision-making. Even if it is on just one issue, like taking corporate greed out of the political process altogether. (And when it was at its zenith, the divine right of kings was thought to be unassailable as well, so yes I think it could be done.)
There are a host of traditional Democratic issues on which consensus even among Democrats is difficult. But on the issue of too much corporate greed and too much corporate influence on politics, there is a party-crossing, religious-crossing, demographic bridging consensus that the Democratic party leaders are incapable of using. That does not mean they could not be led there by the base. While it would not exclusively fit the “progressive” label, it is my belief that if you could put people back in the seat of government, that most of the other issues would all of sudden become much less difficult to resolve.
Just MO.
Traditional party platforms are certainly crap! I was on the 92 DNC platform committee. Platform language is a symphony of passive-voice weasel words that commits to absolutely nothing. I’ll never forget one of my favorite sentences: “A no-first use of nuclear weapons policy would do much towards reducing the level of tension in today’s world.”
Some crap like that, anyway.
A simple statement of basic, bottom-line principles, IMO, is something very different, that has the potential to be a powerful tool. Part of the problem the Democrats have had is the public perception (in part crafted by Karl Rove) that Democrats “don’t stand for anything.”
So let’s show them what we stand for. Let’s keep it simple, straight-forward, direct.
Interestingly, I was procrastinating…err, researching…yeah, researching…on the web earlier tonight, and there is a similar discussion going on at Left Coaster.