Yesterday’s kick off of the BMT Electoral Politics Project is still getting comments. If you didn’t see it, or, like many East Coasters, it got posted too late for you…you should feel free to add to the discussion in that thread or create a new comment below.
Here’s the Question again:
As a progressive, how do you intersect with electoral politics? ie. What has your experience been with elections and candidates and what does electoral politics mean to you?
For a couple reflections and tommorrow’s question…see below!
It was very interesting to read how many BooTribbers have had negative experiences with electoral politics.
Kahli’s comment is worth some thought and discussion alone. Here’s someone who has worked very hard for a variety of electoral causes only to feel, on some level, burnt by the process. Does that resonate with you?
Further, ignorent bystander writes of the utter isolation of engaging with electoral politics someplace where an anti-Bush bumper sticker makes a major statement. Are there any other BooTribbers who can relate?
Finally, when NL in St Paul writes:
What the Dems did to Dean left a mark on me in terms of involvement in national politics. It stung me bad personally and I’m not sure what to do with it. I don’t trust most of our national leaders, but see the importance of getting Republicans out of control. For example, I’ve been hesitating getting involved in Amy Klobuchar’s senate campaign here in MN. On one level, I know she just has to beat Kennedy, but she seems pretty careful and does not seem to be speaking out clearly on the really important issues. So I’m on the fence now about all that.
It seems to strike a common nerve. Are there others here who feel the same way.
All in all, while it may well be a very good thing that we’re doing this project on BMT, it’s also clear that electoral politics is not eliciting “rosy” images for many here. What are your thoughts on this?
Now, tommorrow afternoon West Coast Time I’ll post Pt. 1 of the next step of this project. I’ll be asking Bootribbers for your top Five “Progressive Platform Planks.” You are free to determine whether these planks are Issues, statements of philosophy, or, as northcountry refers to them, “rubicons.”
Basically, I’m looking to understand how we judge candidates…and what we expect to be able to “vote for” when we enter the voting booth.
Please feel free to comment below, and, if you are interested in helping with this project behind the scenes…mostly compiling lists and links and boiling down the ideas that get generated here…feel free to email me at kidoakland”at”comcast”dot”net.
I’ll tell you what k/o. One place I do NOT intersect with electoral politics is with petitioning Democrats.
Joe is so full of shit. He now needs to come up with a name for his party of one. Maybe he should go with the Joementum Party, or the Nutmeg Party, or the Disloyal Stupid Pals of James Woolsey party. Or maybe, the Chickenhawk Party.
Maybe so, but IMO it sure would be nice to see lots of new political parties that might start the process of breaking the stranglehold on mind and body that the two stale and maybe somewhat indistinguishable current parties have wrought on us with their incumbent longevity, detachment from ordinary citizen’s realities, and total almost fascist alignment with corporations.
Electoral politics for me began when my father was a Democratic Committee person in our western PA town, and brought home pink specimen ballots which were the perfect size for me to create cartoon panels on the blank side. I was maybe 9. I stayed up to record vote totals from the radio in the 1956 presidential election, even though I didn’t understand what “electoral votes” were. I had a Stevenson button and apart from party loyalty, I remember knowing about his stand on the dangers of nuclear testing.
The first campaign I worked on, at 14, was JFK’s. I went to his Inauguration and by superior planning, shook his hand at St. Matthew’s in Georgetown that Sunday.
Running a little group of high schoolers for that campaign got me known by local Dems and the then very active union political arm called COPE, and I was asked to work on a state rep campaign in 1962. I remember going to the Court House to watch the votes being tabulated. I had relatives on my mother’s side (Italian) in the county party. By 1964 and 5, I was being asked to take on big jobs, including running the local poverty program, though I couldn’t accept any of them since I was going to college out of state.I did work the summer of 1964 on voter registration, a paid position.
I mention all this for several reasons. First, because at that time, politics was part of community life especially for recent immigrant families and ethnics; second, labor unions were central, and third, they all kept their eyes out for new young talent, and tried to nurture it. Something that the wingers began doing much better in recent decades, as the old Democratic base split, partly to suburbs and away from old loyalties.
But then came Vietnam in 1965 (when the bombing and escalation began) and my response to it severed my relationship with the local Democratic party. If it hadn’t been for that, I might have returned and eventually run for office. One of my young compatriots did so; he’s now a judge.
My involvement in electoral politics since then has mostly been in presdential campaigns, either working, volunteering or covering some aspect of them as a journalist, all at a local level (in Boston and Pittsburgh.) I am usually more “progressive” than the party or its candidates, but my interest in the JFK administration at an impressionable age gave me the foundation for a complex approach to politics, governing and advocacy. The arts of the possible.
Here in CA I thought about the Green Party, but quickly realized that the art of the possible demanded a practical approach to presidential elections. I never for a moment doubted that George Bush would be a disaster, and Al Gore was far and away the better candidate. I regard these elections as hiring somebody to be president, and (after the primaries) you have two choices.
But dialogue with local Greens–and the experience of 2000–helped me define myself better politically. Though I am with the Greens on almost all environmental issues (except when they are weak on Native rights), I am disturbed by their deficiencies on issues of racial justice and economic justice for working people and the poor. I look for a synthesis of long range future-oriented thinking, and solutions that end suffering now. And in terms of politics, they really have no party. For me, it’s either work to change the Democratic party, or go it alone.
So now I find that the best, fast description of myself poltically is a Robert Kennedy Democrat.
When you write:
So the core word for you is: synthesis. It’s how you describe the process of engaging with electoral politics. ie. You are able to balance your own views and politics with supporting a candidate in a “win/lose” presidential election. You use “synthesis” again here:
What’s interesting to me is you describe how interaction with political parties…Green, Democratic…has actually sharpened your own individual political views. It seems that the stronger those individual views have become, the more the deficiencies of electoral-based parties have become apparent to you. However, the strength of your views, that foundation, has meant that you are, at the same time, empowered to make principled choices to engage with electoral activism on your own terms.
That seems to come directly out of your view of synthesis. ie. You don’t interpret your political support in a “one to one” way…you make qualifications. You see the process of selecting candidates and engaging politically as something bigger and more organic than.
I support X party or candidate, therefore my politics = their politics.
That’s right. And you can see the general importance to me of synthesis in the HG Wells quote in my sig line.
My views on electoral candidates are also influenced by those arts of the possible (as somebody defines politic.) Part of my synthesis was learning of the limitations of an officeholder’s power (via for example R. Neustadt’s “Presidential Power” and Theo. Sorenson’s “Decision-Making in the White House”)and learning something about psychological projection.
I saw the latter at work during the Clinton administration. People on the left were violently upset with Clinton because he didn’t do everything they wanted him to. Well, sometmes he just couldn’t. And projecting all our hopes and dreams onto one human being who, like the rest of us, has a 24 hour day, flaws that are often the flipside of our virtues, and has to play the cards he’s dealt, simply guarantees disappointment and disillusion. I have my own keen disappointments about the Clinton administration, but I try to factor in my own projection and the limitations of what he could do at any given time.
When people want your vote,it’s proper to hold them to the highest possible standard, and I agree that in these times politicians must tell us what they believe and stand for, not what they think wll get them elected. But we don’t elect ideals, we elect people we expect to govern or legislate. You need to factor that in, and also be a little understanding of what “possible” can be in a given situation.
Part of what can help make things possible is the result of activism by outsiders. So I supported JFK with all my young heart, but I still marched on Washington in the great Civil Rights march partly to create political possibility and pressure. (And JFK met wth the leaders of the march.) That’s part of the dynamic–and something I look for in an electoral candidate: is this someone who can be moved by argument, facts and the passion of advocates, to focus on a problem and to use advocates to create politcal possibilities to do the right thing?
I actually live in a very conservative area (Lancaster County PA), and I have lots of contact with Repub social ocnservatives. They tolerate my politics, and I try to at least tolerate theirs. I am not sure whether what I say to them changes any minds, but what they say to me does give me an insight into the mind of the 50+ years old white Repub social conservative.
What I see are people who supposedly were democracts at one time but rejected the party because of the feeling that the Dem party was perpetuating an underclass for political reasons, and raising their taxes to do this. Now the real reasons may be latent and not so latent racism, as well as falling for the repub religious-right alignment. They all are supposed churchgoers and bible fundies as far as I can sense. They talk a nice game, but deep down I see them worried about their economic future and health benefits. If a new party could morph into being that stressed workers rights and security but did not carry the baggage of the Democratic party of the last 50 years, I think such a party could control the politics in this country for many years to come.
You’re not the first person to mention that. It’s a term that has a lot of resonance.
We’ve had kind words here for FDR and RFK. It seems the Democrats begain to accrue “baggage” sometime after that.
Was it Carter? Was the Dem Congress ossifying in the 80’s? Or is the “baggage” we’re talking about something of a more recent vintage?
I would like to take credit for what I write below, but the truth is that I have had this disucssion on this very subject many times before. The consensus belief seems to be that things changes during the Johnson administation with the great society safety net extension programs. Under FDR, workers were generic, and all social actions were non-targeted. This brought all workers together into a block that the owner class just could not compete with (and they hated it as well, as they do to this day). Under Johnson and the Dem control of the Congress in the mid sixties, attempts were made to deal with civil rights of minorities and to gived pay-back for the suffering such minorites endured for many years. This alienated southern whites, as well as many workers who felt they were now being made an underclass through overzealous governmental actions. Once this crack showed up, the owner class (Repubs) began to chisel the crack open by exploiting every detail that could arouse more fear in these already anxious white workers. So now we find ourselves in the odd predicament of having many workers voting against their self interest, and giving huge power and wealth to the owner class for reasons that are not logically defensible.
Were the Dems wrong for taking on civil rights in the 1960s, or was it how they took on civil rights that caused the worker split. Now that is the big question, I guess. If a new political workers party began, how eqalitarian could it be so that all workers could again see a common bond without the bogotry, racism, favoritism, and theocractic bullshit that has broken the old “new deal” alliance apart over the last 50 years??
I am not progressive but LIBERAL. I have been involved in campaigns since I was 8 years old and I am now 47. I never quit fightingt for what I believe is right. I am now active in the Party itself. Before this year I always worked on campaigns and issues and left the party to itself. I now realize that the only way to have candidates and a party that believes in the people is for the people to get involved. I refuse to let others make my decisions for me. I am a precinct chairperson for my county,belong to many political and civil rights groups, I work on campaigns, I blog, I podcast, i block walk, I attend meetings and meet with candidates and make damn sure they respect and understand my issues.
I also do designs and use the profits to assist candidates with their campaigns and use the profits from other dessigns to pay for my political and civil rights activities. I might not be an “A” list Dem but I contribute to campaigns what and when I can.
I, also, vote straight democrat every elections and always will. I made the mistake of voting for a moderate repugnant once and she proclaimed Bible week her first week in office. I learned my lesson and will never make that mistake again.
Thanks to Good Old Raw Story
A Los Angeles Times article offered another explanation, citing an influx of Republican operatives who claim to have mustered up 10,000 absentee ballots in the final days before the election.
Kennedy calls that assertion “claptrap,” noting that it would be difficult for precinct walkers to find 10,000 people at home on such short notice, let along find voters with absentee ballots handy.
Despite controversies over the Busby-Bilbray race, Busby did not called for a hand count to verify the accuracy of results. A position paper on her website states “Our focus is on Voting integrity for all Democrats” and calls on San Diego County residents to ask Board of Supervisors members to demand that public hearings be held on voting integrity, “especially the use of electronic machines.”
This goes way beyond how I envision my perfect candidate, so PLEASE get a clue Kid Oakland and deal with the real issues of the corporate supremacy that has hijacked our democracy.
I will vote no matter what. I will do my duty. And I will recycle my trash. I will, because I’m honest.
Even though I know my vote is not counted, and my recycled trash is not treated any differently than any other garbage.
The article you cite prominently mentions two candidates for office:
Debra Bowen: who is running for California Secretary of State
And Jeeni Criscenzo:
Further, the article also mentions Black Box Voting, Progressive Democrats of America, and the California Election Protection Network (who need to update their website it look like)…the story also points to a new DNC policy:
So, mythmother, thank you…I will “get a clue” and include these candidates and organizations in our BMT EPP list of “election reform” candidates and organizations.
That’s what this project is all about.
RTFO stands for right the fuck on.
All this claptrap about ‘what does the party stand for’ is just another lame attempt to define us here and serve it up on a plate with a nice tidy bow for the consultants and the politicians.
The problem with the whole shebang we are now living in is not how we define ourselves, or with having a clearer message. The problem is the corporate hegemony that has permeated every aspect of society and has made even the claptrap being spewed here right now a marketable and sellable item.
The problem is we do not have a voting system that we can trust and the democrats are going to have a hell of a time getting people to come out and support them one more time, pretty please because frankly they squandered our trust in both 2000 and 2004. I think this is especially true for minority voters. I’m sure the dems will show up in the projects again like they do every election year, but this time I think they will find many people not home.
Seems an awful lot like KO is doing some research for a ‘Crashing the Gate’ of his very own.
I’m not going to be party to helping to support one more book whore on their road to Russert’s house. I did it once and did not like the results.
Brian,
While I can certainly understand your concerns about corporate hegemony and our failed voting system, I need to challenge your characerization of k/o. I think you’re stepping over the line of being rather “prickish” in calling him a book whore.
If you have strong feelings about these issues – great. Feel free to express them or don’t participate at all. But flinging this kind of personal invective is inappropriate IMHO.
I have a general perception here, perhaps more philosophical in tone than dealing precisely with the mechanics of the electoral political marketing process, but maybe relevant to the discussion.
For me, there’s always the fundamental question as to where to draw the line, so to speak, between whether we support and vote for someone affirmatively, whether we vote for someone as a lesser of two or more evils, or whether we say to ourselves; “Even though I realize that candidate “X” is the lesser of 2 evils, I cannot in good conscience support him because he doesn’t stand for even the most fundamental core principles I believe in that shouldn’t even be up for negotiation, and because voting for “X” will only add momentum to the party’s inexorable slide to the right and at the same time empoer the same band of self=serving bums who’ve been selling out the party for years in the course of advancing their own ambition”.
Despite all the very valid strategic arguments about how if/when the Dems achieve majority in one or both houses og congress then the committee chairmanships, subpoena power, and rules advatages that accrue to the majority party will allow them to slow the onslaught of the destructive Bush regime juggernaut and set the stage for meaningful and positive change going forward; despite the clarity of the reasoning and logic in this view, I simply have to say I am doubtful if the current leadership of the party and the DLC wankers behind them, will even be interested in pushing for positive change along the lines most of us would agree on is necessary, let alone do I believe even one of them (in the current leadership) would have the courage to stand up forthrightly enough under pressure.
Just some thoughts. I live in Florida and my voting options are abominable anyway, but all of the above is where I see the greatest difficulties. The worst adversaries of the people in the Dem party who I would like to see get momentum and win elections are the leaders of their own party.
To use a football analogy, if you play indoors on astroturf, you should develop a passing game. If you play in Green Bay or the Northeast, you should develop a running game and focus on your defense.
It’s the same game but, depending on the environment, the strategy changes. In our current conditions, it pays to focus on running (small-steps) and defense, because we do not have the power to complete long passes, and we let our guard down, we will find ourselves routed in a blowout.
The basic situation warrants getting subpoena power over any other single issue that faces the nation and the world. Now, what will we do with that subpoena power? It doesn’t matter what Nancy Pelosi says right now. Did it matter when Pat Roberts said he would investigate WMD after the 2004 elections? Investigations will go off on their own accord. The important thing is that we put a stop to this unitary executive crap, along with the other abuses of power, fix the elections process, reform our intelligence agencies, and push the neo-cons out of power and favor.
All of this can be done with a bare majority. We have no margin for error though, particularly in the Senate. There are some people that are more concerned about the lack of health care or the assualt on women’s rights, or gay rights, or the environment, or urban issues, or something else. That’s understandable, as many people have spent a lifetime working on those very important issues. But, we can’t forget we are in a constitutional crisis. For me, that trumps everything. Without our constitutional rights, we are nothing.
That’s how I see it. We can push on all fronts, but we can’t decide the best way forward is to teach the Democrats a lesson and helping them lose.
You have more faith than I that the intentions, the principles and the courage the Dem leadership might display upon achieving a majority position in congress wil lead toward those ends tyou mention. I’d like to think you’re right and my more doubtful view of these people is overly pessimistic.
But this is my point exactly above. Because there are so many capitulators and triangulators at the top of the party currently, it’s almost impossible for people of good conscience to achieve unity of perspective as to where to draw the lines between who to support and who to not support. Is Casey a step forward in PA over the lunatic Santorum? Is Casey worth the vote if he’s not different enough from Santorum? Some say yes others say no. That’s the essence of my observation above. When is the “D” more important than the positions held by that “D”? And can we trust the “Ds” supported by the DLC nuts to move in the direction we want or not?
Sorry, I personally have less trust than you, but I sure hope I’m wrong.
With Casey is comes down to math. We need six seats. Without Casey winning his race, a race where he has a 20 point lead, it’s very hard to get to six seats.
I won’t question anyone’s judgment that refuses to vote for Casey, but I will continue to point out there are important reasons to vote for him.
I would not only hate to have the smarmy Santorum as my Senator for another 6 years, I’d hate to have a 50-50 Senate with Cheney breaking ties.
There are also as many benefits to Santorum’s brand of politics being repudiated in the GOP as there are risks of Casey’s brand being reinforced in the Dems.
At its simplest, the votes Casey will cast for a majority will be much easier to live with than the votes he will cast in the minority. Same with Lieberman. Barely a blip was heard when he was a Veep candidate, but 6 years in the minority and there was a palace revolt.
Sometimes trying to keep one’s finder in the hole in the dike can lead to a bigger disaster later! If you let the weakened dike burst, you can get on with a proper solution and save lives because you would be in control of when the bursting was coming.
Time will tell if your view of the significance of Casey votes will be borne out, and whether a Dem majority in the house with the party’s current leadership will in fact lead to the exercising of those actions you seek.
Your logic and reasoning and perspective on majority party advantages are flawless. I can only hope your optimism is warranted and that my lack of optimism is off the mark.
too bad he’s going to lose, and if he doesn’t, he’ll fuck us all over as badly as the Nelsons or Lieberman ever did.
Supporting Casey while opposing Lieberman is to demonstrate some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance.
buying a Hybrid rather than repairing and maintaining one’s old car exhibits a similar contradiction.
Or…purchasing organic food from a non-union grocery store.
There’s no “pure” stand point. There just isn’t.
To be frank, what I’d hope would come out of this project, rather than stale debates about all the familiar names…
would be fresh ideas, fresh faces, less well known suggestions for someplace to throw one’s support.
Hopefully you can help with this!
KO,
You may be asking too much. Let’s try this analogy. Make believe you are a blogger in 1938 Germany, and you are both progressive and gifted with the insight of what is going to happen! The Nazi momentum is getting very strongly in control, is like quicksand in its attraction for you countrymen, and is just dangerous to oppose. However, compromising with it may just suck you in all the way to be part of the parade. What do you do?? Looking at it in a bit more imaginative manner, what could have been done by any opposition party (but was obviously not done) to stop the holocaust and maybe even prevent WWII???
not looking for “purity”, no matter how many times people say I am. The one politician I wholeheartedly support at this point is Feingold, and he’s cast votes I just HATE.
What he has, and so many others don’t, and so many of these discussions don’t, is INTEGRITY. Feingold can look you in the eye and tell you WHY he voted to confirm Roberts, and do it in a way that is utterly consistent with his other votes.
It’s not PURITY, or some laundry list of issues, but INTEGRITY that is lacking in almost ALL of our public institution. The entire society is set up now to reward cheating and lying, and the only way to push back against that is to be the opposite of it. As things stand, the Democrats are just like the Republicans, only they’re not any good at it. Lieberman and Casey are emblematic of the problem.
Frankly, I’m convinced they’re going to lose badly this fall, and again in ’08, and I’m almost glad. Maybe then a real left will have an opportunity to start to push for real change.
when Booman explains his support of Casey in the context of his opposition to Lieberman, it’s cognitive dissonance.
However, when Feingold explains his vote in support of Roberts it’s integrity.
I’m honestly not seeing the distinction.
Imo, it is great that you mention Feingold. Let’s keep getting names in the hat and the hopper here. That’s what this is all about.
Like I said, I’m hoping this process proves useful for all of us, and sincerely hope you continue to participate in whatever way you choose.
Feingold has a standard when it comes to nominations. He’s made it clear for years.
I’m never sure if I’m a liberal or a progressive. I’m not sure it actually makes a difference (at least to me). As far as I can tell (and frankly I’m not sure I can tell), both have similar goals but tend to focus on different means for achieving those goals. That’s why I don’t get too worked up about the difference. If I want to achieve a goal, I don’t really see the point in limiting myself to certain political methods.
I spent a lot of time working on political campaigns when I was growing up. My family was very political and very Democratic; both my grandpa and my dad held elective office and quite a few members of my family went into public service jobs. Mostly I worked on local and state elections but the very first campaign I remember being able to go “out” to work on was Tom Eagleton’s 1968 senate campaign; I was 8 years old. Over the years I did it all. I went door-to-door; I got up at 5 in the morning to work the polls; I stuffed envelopes; I worked phone banks.
I’m not sure exactly when things changed. By my mid 20’s I was still following politics but my active participation in electoral politics was minimal. I always voted and I still occasionally worked on a campaign IF it was someone I personally knew that was running. But that was about it. Then the 2000 election happened AND the grassroots/netroots movement started and I started volunteering again.
In terms of my view of electoral politics, I would describe it as strategic — with a small tinge of hopeful idealism. In general I see individual political races as parts of a puzzle and I’m usually more concerned with the big picture than the individual pieces. Just like I don’t get too worked up about the difference between liberal and progressive, I seldom get too worked up about any particular candidate. I’ll vote for a candidate if I think they can fit into a good strategy to promote, or at least preserve, certain policies or programs I value – even if I disagree with the candidate on some core issues. And I’ll give them money.
But I don’t like doing work on the ground for someone I don’t personally believe in – I’ll only do it if I think it’s absolutely necessary. And I regularly send donations to underdogs that I really like but who I think have no hope of winning. I tell myself this IS strategic because it helps move the actual party candidate toward positions I like – but really I think I do it just because I like to.
I haven’t missed voting in an election since I reached majority in 1972. I maintain full bitchin’ rights by doing so; and I take my voting seriously.
The so-called [un]Democratic party has sold its base down the river (but yet expects to receive votes, money, and freebie volunteerism labor).
Nada–prepare for backlash this fall, folks.
Yes, it occurred after Nixon’s “southern strategy” hoopla (today’s DLC DixieCrats are our latest triangulated enemies–“we” meaning feminists and African Americans).
All we need to do is nothing…sit on our hands (midterms & ’08).
I’m a feminist before I’m a Democrat (spineless Dems. never utter a peep about the ERA, for instance), that’s for sure (I unenrolled for over a year–am too old to tolerate misogyny from my own party–have two divorces under my belt to prove it)!
I am fortunate that we have a bonafide feminist Democrat in Maine’ who’s running against the not-so-moderate ‘Limp Snowe.
Jean Hay Bright (D-ME) is the equivalent of the late great Mink/Wellstone duo (a vanishing breed).
All I hear about in the so-called progressive blogosphere are so-called “Fighting Dems” (too heavy on the testosterone, for my tastes–let’s dispense w/this “tough on defense” malarky, already).
I shall only vote for pro-choice anti-war candidates.
Women comprise the base of the Democratic party; and over 52% of the American electorate (stop pissing us off)!
Bob Casey? Be serious, PA.
Period.
Get the hell out of Iraq, already; and let’s opt out our kids, while we’re at it!
Give Peas a Chance is a helluva meme, vs. “Support Our Troops” yellow ribbon (would someone please burn those for me)? Thanks muchly.
I support my candidates re: where they stand on the issues, it’s that simple.
Yes, we’re marching in tomorrow’s Bangor-Brewer 4th of July parade (perhaps ducking boos, hisses, and shrieks of “go home, pinko Commie hippies,”) but we’ve faced worse than that in the past.
It’s time to take a stand, folks…in your communities; as well as throughout the blogosphere.
Force your candidates to ‘earn’ your vote, your freebie labor, and your money in the midterms; and during the ’08 debacle.
A.B.B. doesn’t cut it.
I haven’t marched in a 4th of July parade since I was a Girl Scout leader (1994).
It’s time to march, folks.
Pax~
I have started to say that my politics are liberal and my implementation is moderate. The worst thing about Bush, is that he is dividing our nation and wilfully ignoring the needs and desires of over half of the country. That is why he is so unpopular, and it is also why he has done so many things that we see as awful. As much as I want to see liberal policies implemented, I want it done in such a way that it further alienates the 30% or so that still support Bush. As much as I disagree with them they are still Americans with rights and votes.
My first experience with proper electoral politics has been during this cycle. Canvassing for the Ann Dicker campaign, and phone banking for Pat Murphy. I have also written letters to the editor, which I started in 2004. I helped organise the Project Shame on You which worked on writing letters to the editor at papers which endorsed Bush in 2000, arguing that he was not the president that they had endorsed. Thus far I have found it to be rather rewarding to work for a candidate, but I have worked for very worthwhile candidates. I am torn about what to do in the PA-Senate race, I want to work to defeat Santorum but am mixed on Casey.
I really really like that. I think I could say that my politics are radical, but my practice and expectations are moderate.
This ties right back to the “Art of The Possible” that Captain Future discusses above with kid oakland. Captain Future’s take on what he learned from supporting JFK and the ferment of the sixities and the clash of social progress with electoral politics is really instructive.
Perhaps we could all do ourselves a favor by going back and reading a lot of the work done on politics, power, and groups back in the Sixties. Neustadt is one as Captain Future points out. I’ve always felt that Theodore White’s The Making of the President 1960 and 1964 and Gary Will’s Nixon Agonistes are particulary insightful. Perhaps because they describe sea changes and transformations.
To K/O and all of you who, like me, are really interested in this project, I’d recommend going over to PsiFighter37’s diary “Celebrating our political heros” diary. It gave me a real emotional lift to think about the likes of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Howard Dean, and the Wellstones. We do have a rich history of some amazing people who have been in the trenches for a long time. Something to ponder and help inspire me to keep at it. After all, as the bumper sticker says, “What Would Wellstone Do?”