Originally posted at Liberal Street Fighter
Ah, so the House Liberal goes from self-professed leftie to purging Bolshevic, all in the name of “winning” against a greater “evil”.
Along with this worry-wartism is the perspective of some that even if Democratic challengers get more votes, they won’t take office because Diebold will intervene. And then there’s the ultimate reason offered for not getting excited: even if the intervention fails, and Democrats manage to squeeze out a majority, this won’t matter because too many Democrats aren’t “really” Democrats and will vote with the Republicans anyway. Which translates into: There isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between the Dems and the GOP.
Thus does despair seek to create its own empire of apathy.
I’m a Popular Front Democrat, so I’m full of criticism for the party. But, unless one’s goal aligns with Rove’s and Denny Hastert’s, now isn’t the time to complain that Democrats have no ideas, or principles, or spine. Later for that. Now is the time to kick Republican butt. Having succeeded, in January we can kick Democratic butt.
Nope, no ferment and debate allowed there on the BIGGEST “LIBERAL” BLOG IN THE LAND. As the broken machine of the corrupt Democratic party is the only machine we have left, it’s important that we ALL sacrifice what we think, what we believe, to support that machine. Even if it crushes us in the process.
Thomas Paine wrote, in Common Sense:
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this.” But examine the passions and feelings of mankind: bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
We are back where we started. Can we honestly say that the leaders of BOTH halves of our ruling party any less monarchical that were the British rulers of the colonies? The Hessians may not be quartered in our homes, but our pockets are picked to fund a huge death machine, both in a giant military as well as our increasingly paramilitary police forces and prisons. How many office holders are the children of office holders? We have ruling families nearly as well-established and powerful as the Lords of England in the 18th Century. The streets of New Orleans were stalked by private, heavily armed mercenaries, tasked with protecting property over serving suffering American citizens.
We are in this mess because large varieties of belief and opinion have been wiped off the field of political battle. In Virginia, once the province of true leaders like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, the voters have a choice between two militarist warhawks, one an obvious racist and the other a published misogynist. In Pennsylvania, either the Democrat or the Republican will push for taking away women’s freedom, a battle between a wacko theofascist and the rightwing Catholic scion of a politically connected family. Thanks to the machinations of Schumer and Emmanuel, many races this November are between the VERY FAR RIGHT and the RIGHT. Some choice, and now Meteor Blades, who likes to tell us about how many important leftist movements he’s been involved in, wants you to shut up if you have any problems with that.
Should these center-right and rightwing Democrats win, they will swell the ranks of the sort of folks who cross the aisle to shred the Constitution. They will tell you, should the Donks take back one of both Houses of Congress, that we the people will be rewarded with important Dems getting Chairmanships on important committees. Tell me, does anyone believe that a majority in the Senate populated by increased numbers of Blue Dogs and DLC/NDN corporatists will vote for a true liberal for any of those posts? Durbin would not be allowed anywhere near the Speaker’s chair. Pelosi will be headed off by Steny Hoyer. Conyers will be passed over for some comfortably corrupt hack. Is there any reason to believe that the Dems would ignore seniority any less than the Republicans do, or will they elevate aisle-crossing rightists over a more loyal center-leftist? Michael J. Smith over at Stop Me Before I Vote Again:
What makes the Democrats tick? Surely, you’ll say, it’s the obvious thing — the thing that drives any political party: the desire to take power.
I don’t think so. Oh, they’d love to wield power if it fell into their laps — as they hope it will do next month, thanks to the almost incredible blundering of the other side. And if there were some risk-free way of gaining power — some Big Red Button they could push — of course they’d push it.
But these are daydreams. The real, workaday, nine-to-five job of any Democrat is to hold on to what he’s got, and risk it as little as possible. And I think that once we really take this idea in, it has some pretty important implications.
They won’t do anything to risk their fat checks and juicy perks. Elevating genuine leaders would risk pissing off the corporate paymasters.
So easily do the faux-liberals at the big orange ballot-heeling operation fall in line with the likes of Reid, Clinton, Schumer and Emmanuel. How dare they tell you that you should still your voice, sacrifice your ballot, swallow your issues in service of a profoundly broken party? Too many of us are silent already, and our small voices are drowned out by the din of shouting money … how exactly does the great “liberal” warrior expect change to ever happen if we all meekly knuckle under? JSP again:
If the party were about taking power, you’d think they would figure out that what they’re doing is not working — that they’re failures. But they don’t see it in that light. Every incumbent occupies his seat because his strategy worked for him; every incumbent is in fact a success story, and you don’t change a successful formula.
That’s why the only way to make them change is to make the strategy stop working. As long as they get a pellet when they press the triangulation lever, they’ll keep pressing it. If they get an electric shock instead, they’ll stop. A donkey is at least as smart as a lab rat.
Which brings me to my point: defeat is the only electric shock that will get the donkey’s attention. And I mean defeat in the general election, caused by a “spoiler” third party, which is the only effectual kind.
Primary defeats, like Lieberman’s, while satisfying, are more difficult to accomplish. Typically there is only one “progressive” challenger, so it’s a head-to-head race — no three-way splits. And then, of course, the only people who come out for primaries are the party faithful. And usually, the challenger is not a millionaire like Ned Lamont.
Moreover, even when primary challenges are successful, they don’t necessarily succeed, as in the Connecticut debacle, where in spite of his primary defeat, Lieberman appears to be on his way back to Washington.
But when a third party really makes a long-standing party strategy stop working, then something has got to give.
Keep rewarding their selling out of your rights, opportunities and future, and you’re helping in your own exploitation. If your local candidate doesn’t share your values, then vote for someone who does. The lesser of two evils is still an evil. The far-right took over the Republican party by voting for third parties, by staying home, by writing in doomed candidates. After enough Republican bi-partisans lost, the rest got the idea. The only way to save this country is for the left to accept that this is a project that will take years, that it will have to start locally and build outward and to quit voting for obvious traitors to our ideals. Shut up and go along, and you’re part of the problem.
Cartoon stolen from Almeida Cartoons … with appreciation.
Of just the registered voters, more are independents, unenrolled in any party, than are enrolled in either of the major parties.
Nobody expects defections from registered partisans, so whence are you garnering your needed majority?
From the independents you disparage for not voting according to your stategy?
Good luck.
why are the majority of voters NOT in either party?
Because NEITHER party speaks to the issues of their lives. BOTH parties serve monied interests and established vote/fundraising operations.
Americans want universal healthcare. Americans want a peaceful nation. Americans don’t want corporations suckling the lifesblood of their hard work dry. A GENUINE LEFTIST LEADER could have a real impact on this country, if given the chance. RFK became more popular as he moved left, and would likely have continued in that direction if they hadn’t killed him. FDR made huge strides for the American people by moving left, and arguably made this a stronger and more just nation.
It’s going to happen eventually or this country will finish off the last vestiges of freedom that we still possess. Putting off the injection of a vital left into the political conversation serves only the demands of wealthy investors and the warmongers. A healthy politics requires ALL frequencies on the political spectrum to have a chance to shine in the halls of gov’t, NOT just the far red and redish-purple end.
Obviously a third party challenge in this country is needed…from the right.
Just read this history of the battle to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Despite having 67 Senators, and experienced former Senate Majority Leader as President, and a nation on mourning for JFK and eager to pass his agenda, the Democrats were saddled with 21 Senators that refused to support the legislation. Just breaking through the filibusters took 57 days. Everett Dirksen, the Minority Leader from Illinois was the key to passage.
This idea that there was some idyllic former New Deal Democratic Party unsaddled by conservatives, is bad history.
It was only after we lost most of those Senate seats and McGovern was trounced, that the Democratic Party emerged as one with any kind of consensus on most issues. And that party was no longer a majority party, as we have seen.
We purged the party of our racists. They were replaced by DLC and Blue Dog Democrats, a decided improvement, albeit, one that abandoned southern populist principles along with its racism.
Be careful what you wish for. But we should not surprised to see candidates like Webb and Ford making inroads in the south. I am not ecstatic about it. Far from it. But it shows there is at least some life left in the southern Democratic Party, and it hasn’t flickered into existence with appeals to racism, but, at least in Virginia, in response to it.
A third party challenge from the right will MOVE THE COUNTRY FURTHER RIGHT. Geez, look at the Perot run from the Libertarian right … either way, Clinton or Dole, we were stuck w/ a Republican, but it gave Clinton cover to triangulate even further to the right while it gave the Republicans to follow up Dole w/ the winger Dubya.
LBJ got the party in line w/ the help of the righties being challenged from the left.
You have an interesting way of reading history.
Calling Clinton a Republican is not really helpful in this debate.
The immediate result of Perotism was twofold. It was an anti-incumbency movement, very tied into term-limits, for example.
It served to switch power in both the Congress AND the Executive. This wound up serving the right more than left over the medium term, but it did give us 8 years of Democratic power. And while Clinton moved the Party to the center (or right, if you will) he did so in response to the Congress moving sharply to the right.
Here’s what you are forgetting. From 1980 on, the Democrats were not a majority party in this country anymore. That was disguised by our ownership of the House and (off and on, the Senate) during the Reagan/Bush era. Winning the executive in 1992 didn’t change that, but rather exacerbated it.
This country is filled with enough bigotry and ignorance and social conservatism that no party can operate as a majority party without appealing to people that have those shortcomings on some level. I think you and I would prefer we approach them with a populist message (move to the left).
But it isn’t going to happen without our gaining seats in rural areas. And we have to break through the xenophobia, the embryophilia, and militaristic jingoistic appeals.
Would you take a Democratic Party with 67 Senators, including a bunch of pro-life southern Senators (say 21 of them)? Would you take that over 51 Senators, with only 3 or 4 pro-lifers?
My guess is that your answer would depend on how populist that Senate was.
But however you slice it, a true majority party is not going to be ideologically pure. It just isn’t.
We have all kinds of former Republicans drifting back into the party and that is what is going to make the party a majority party again. But when they come back and even run for office, they are going to move the party toward the right in certain respects. Yet, the overall drift of a majority Democratic Party that wields power, is to the left. Certainly to the left of our current Congress.
Oh, the “ideologically pure” gambit.
Please. It is LEFTIST ideas that are being purged by the party, and that have been under attack since the early 70s.
The Democrats haven’t been a majority party for most of my lifetime BECAUSE THEY STAND FOR NOTHING, other than the continuation of the status quo.
I will not stand w/ misogynist pro-birthers and homophobes any more than I would stand with apologists for slavery. That so many supposed liberals are willing to stand more closely to them than to feminists and GLBT freedom activists reveals only that they are truly liberal, aren’t humanists and are nothing more than selfish believers in the American creed of standing only for one’s self.
You have a very dim view of Americans. I’m not a big fan of them either, but hardcore racists and homophobes are maybe a third of the population. MOST people want to live and let live. Sadly, no one speaks to that level of humanity.
oops, AREN’T truly liberal. Preview is a poster’s friend.
On some level, the American people are responsible for the type of people that represent them. They are not wholly responsible because of the media messaging and the campaign finance rules.
But, to deny the appeal of conservative ideas and propaganda is just foolish. Countering it effectively is one of our greatest challenges.
of course I don’t. What I’ve been arguing all along is that there is a liberal message that people would respond to IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HEAR IT. Look at Russ Feingold here in WI, which is pretty much a 50/50 state … he’s very popular BECAUSE HE STANDS UP FOR WHAT HE BELIEVES, and he articulates it. He gets plenty of votes in upstate reddish WI.
The media has removed nearly everyone of the genuine left from the conversation. A few newspaper columns and a failing radio network being slowly strangled to death by the same wimpy centrism killing the party don’t count as having a voice.
Keep standing up those straw madmen to knock down … it’s always entertaining.
But, to deny the appeal of conservative ideas and propaganda is just foolish. Countering it effectively is one of our greatest challenges.
You cannot appeal to OR counter the republican trash if you do not offer something different than meekly echoing many of their right wing views.
If Democrats were to make a simple issue of asking for a “veto-proof” House and Senate and guarenteed universal health care in return for that clear-cut majority, I guarentee you that there would be a surge in registered voters AND landslide victories for the Dems. (BUT they would have to deliver…)
And the entire country would swing waaaay left in a good way.
But the Dems are unwilling to do this because of the lobbyists that own them. The same lobbyists that make Republicans their Washington pawns. The same lobbyists that keep this country out of the left hemisphere of politics by reenforcing the right wing talking points in both parties.
Just a little modified Chomsky fer yer choppers to chew on…
🙂 Not that y’all wouldn’t know that already.
(BUT they would have to deliver…)
And they haven’t–just look at all the crap that Congress approved!! As a result, they have to prove they are different by acting on what they say, not just issuing a press release and rolling over and caving during an actual vote.
But, to deny the appeal of conservative ideas and propaganda is just foolish. Countering it effectively is one of our greatest challenges.
I don’t have any trouble effectively countering cultural misogyny at all. What I have trouble with is the fact that you guys do not have our backs at all and neither do your pathetic token women. The folks at DK and TNH don’t try to counter and they disparage those who do.
Can I ask what your ideal platform would be to end cultural misogyny?
MOST people want to live and let live. Sadly, no one speaks to that level of humanity.
That is why so many people don’t vote!! People feel why bother, as all the candidates are the same.
They were replaced by DLC and Blue Dog Democrats, a decided improvement, albeit, one that abandoned southern populist principles along with its racism.
I would firmly disagree with the notion that the DLC and blue dogs are a “decided improvement”. They’re just as racist and probably more misogynist. (of course they, like all the ‘new democrats’ have their tokens. I would likewise dispute the notion that the southern Democrats or the country as a whole has overcome the little racism problems and certainly not their gender problems. Indeed it seems to me that the regressive social attitudes of the south dominate the Democratic party power structure just as much as the GOP’s.
I must say that my focus of the past few years of listening to, observing the behaviors of and occasionally interacting with Democratic party operatives and strategists has made me a firm Independent. The Fpagers on TNH and DK (and their abused wives and co-workers) have and continue to provide the material for a great book on what precisely is wrong with the Democratic party and that is useful but it’s a little like looking at a long dead body infested with maggots. Unpleasant work but someone should do it.
It’s not really my job to defend other bloggers but you are painting with a pretty broad brush there.
Are Georgia10, McJoan, Plutonium Page, Marcy Wheeler, SusanG and other FP’ers really misogynists?
Are Markos and Armando and Meteor Blades racists?
And if you can’t see any improvement between Richard Russell and Max Cleland, Orval Faubus and Bill Clinton, etc., then I don’t know what to tell you.
The DLC, as odious as it is, was built as a way to get the Dems to win in the south again. The DLC is pro-corporate, pro-empire, pro-Israel…but it is isn’t racist, and it at least formally pro-choice.
Madman and I pretty much agree on what is really wrong with the DLC and we seem to agree, for the most part, that economic populism is the best way to win in the south. What we disagree on is whether or not the best thing for this country is for the left to suffer even worse losses. I have lost enough, thank you.
Are Georgia10, McJoan, Plutonium Page, Marcy Wheeler, SusanG and other FP’ers really misogynists?
Are Markos and Armando and Meteor Blades racists?
no, that was not what I was saying as you well know.
Tell me, Boo, did you come up with this twisted and insane misinterpretation yourself or did you have help?
I get the impression that a continued Republican majority in Congress would allow Bush to continue his adventures in the Middle East by bombing Iran. What is your response to those who would say that it’s better to have a milquetoast Democratic Party in charge as opposed to allowing the Republicans to further advance their insane agenda?
Out of a lethal combination of fear, of being pro-Israel warmongers themselves and being beholden to corporate interests, they’d cave and give him much of what he wants.
Look at all of the bloodthirsty talk that comes out of most of the “leadership”. They love to talking about killing, bombing, standing by Bush against foreign critics, rubber-stamping EVERY war crime the Israelis embark in.
Worse, the true liberals will end up frozen out of most of the powerful positions, and Bush will get to slather the “bi-partisan” label on the next two years.
They WILL NOT fight back for us, not the greater majority of these hacks, and you can absolutely count on Casey, Webb and many of the other newbies to eagerly contribute to the further militarization of our country.
If you want to undermine US support for Israel, Congress is only a side battle. We need campaign finance reform to defang the PACs — and almost incidentally, the well-funded pro-Israel PACs — and we need to defang evangelical Christianity.
Of course, campaign finance reform requires the approval of Congress, and the only people in a position to fight the evangelicals are moderate Christians, a group that has never, in its entire history, put up a credible ideological challenge to their frothier brethren.
I suppose one could always boycott Israeli goods, whatever the heck those are. I’m sure they must make something, though I can’t recall ever seen “Made in Israel” stamped on anything I’ve ever bought.
…better to have the GOP in power for another two or twenty years than to have Democrats in power because the Democrats we’ll have in power won’t do everything or even close to everything that needs to be done. Better to have Santorum and Allen and Burns in the Senate because Webb and Casey and Tester aren’t “real” Democrats anyway. Better to support a third party which doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of winning any seat above mayor because the Democrats are just a slightly different breed of corporatist lapdog.
For the record, I am urging people to stay their criticisms of the party – much of which is justified, much of which I also make – for the four-week run-up to this election. I am not suggesting, have never suggested, will never suggest, that people not criticize Democrats in general. But there’s tactical and strategic. Your electoral tactics, effectively, consist of working against a Democratic majority now to back your strategy of getting a third party eventually into power. So your tactics are to blast Democrats right to up election day because they are supposedly no different than the Republicans.
My strategy is to try to curb Bush by getting a Democratic majority in the national legislature because, however flawed I think the party is (and I think it is deeply flawed), it is still better than the single available alternative: continued GOP control of every branch. Clearly, this makes me a sell-out in your eyes, in great part because you don’t understand the difference between electoral strategy and non-electoral strategy. Anybody who thinks political parties are the place where the great issues of the day – Abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights, abortion rights, women’s rights, gay rights, anti-militarism – are won needs to read history more clearly.
On the day we win a new Democratic majority – or fail to acquire one – is when those of us on the left of the party begin doing what we can to bring that majority more in line with our views. No matter how much you perceive me to be a house nigger, that time is not four weeks before election day.
Look, I know your argument well …
Like so many other arguments you claim to know well you do not appear to know this one either.
“Electoral strategy,” jusified to regain Democratic control. Makes sense on the surface, MB.
Under the surface lies the valid question “Whose rights are we willing to compromise and/or sacrifice, temporarily, to accomplish this?”
The answer to this is glaringly apparent.
Womens rights.
Not mens rights.
Womens.
And who got to decide this?
Men, of course.
I don’t remmber being consulted on this decision.
I don’t know of any other women who were either.
You brilliant male political stragetists decided it all for us.
And it sounds to me like it is very difficult for you to understand why we couldn’t just go along with your convinction that you know whats best for all of us.
But to do so would require a level of trust in “powerful men in powerful positions”to protect womens rights, that no sane woman I know, who has lived many years could POSSIBLY muster up.
There is not ONE SHRED of factual history of this ever happening. MB. Not until forced to consider out rights, were our rights ever even considered by men in power, and you know it.
It is beyond ludicrous for you or any other strategist to expect this, and, in my mind, exhibits your basic ignorance of the history of the fight for the hard won womens rights you are so causally willing to barter with now.
Not for lack of places to learn about it either. Along with many others at Kos, we did our best to be heard, and it earned us only an invitation to leave.
I know your intent is pure: you all want what’s best for us ALL. But until you are more willing to listen to ALL of us, and grant equal credibility to ALL genders and generations, you are operating from arrogance and chosen ignorance, in my opinion.