It’s a shame that the Democratic Party spends almost zero time making sure their activists are happy. This is a general observation that is unrelated to anything currently going on in politics. The current situation is much worse. Making it impossible for someone to defend you with a straight face is an error of different proportions.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
22 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
They’ve always taken us for granted. I sense many activists aren’t willing to settle for that role any more.
But those contribution envelopes keep coming.
l think the root of the problem lies in their definition of activist v activism:
acceptable, when those changes conform to the cw. not so much the case when it comes to
nuff said.
I made this argument over the weekend while FISA steam rolled out of my ears. The Democratic Leadership hardly ever throws their base or activists a bone at all. It is usually a big middle finger.
I never see this type of activity out of the GOP. The GOP would never ever screw their base on issues that really mattered to them and cave to the dems interests. Glenzilla (Greenwald) makes a salient point that bipartianship actually only exists when the Dems sell out their caucus, not the other way around.
I still have a hard times coming to grips that so few GOPers care about allowing the govt to spy on Americans without true judicial review. What the hell happened to their distrust for all things govt?
See my reply below.
The RatPub activists CAN deliver a vote.
And they get their bone, too. Wif meat on it.
Dems?
Yup.
PHHHHFFFFFFFT!!!!!
AG
as you can earn with votes and/or money.
Money buys votes, one way or another. It buys hypno-ads or actually buys special interest groups. You pointed this system out yourself, Booman, when you complained that Obama did not spread the expected, that’s-the-way-it-works-here-in-Philadelphia cash during the primary.
Which, you will notice, he lost.
The so-called “activists” cannot deliver vote OR money. Not enough to defeat the machine. They can mount a challenge rhat is strong enough to alter the centrist rhetoric, but as Dean’s defeat and Obama’s success should illustrate (Yes, Obama. A centrist if ever there was one, despite his rhetoric.), when push comes to shove the activists cannot dominate an election or even deliver an effective swing vote, so they are essentially ignored.
They do not have the numbers.
So it goes.
Ain’t happening.
Bet on it.
Now if the “activists” coulda/woulda…ahhh, nevermind.
They can’t.
Too fluffy.
Castro and Mao Zhe Dong were “activists”.
So were Gandhi, MLK Jr. and Malcolm X.
Active “activists” survive and dominate, apparently. For better or for worse.
Passive ones? They get shot in the head.
Word.
Passive-aggressive ones? YOU know. Like most of the leftiness bloggers?
They just faaaaade away…
AG
How about some actual analysis, Arthur?
Not what. Why?
The Democratic party ignores its base because they know that they’re the lesser of two evils and that we’ve got no other choice besides not voting.
Precisely.
AG
That just doesn’t make sense. The Democratic party has the majority in the House and Senate and is about to take the Presidency because they calculate they’re not quite as evil? That’s turning things upside down.
Is that how politics in the U.S. works? “Hi, I’m a Republican and I’m evil.” “Hi, I’m a Democrat and I’m less evil.”
Come up with something that makes sense.
What does the activist base want? Who stands in their way of what they want?
Democratic Presidential candidates-in fact most Democratic candidates for any office-run as far and fast away from us as they can. Defining who “us” is may be a bit tricky, but I would define “us” as:
And the list could go on extensively.
Why do they run away from us? Because ever since the Cold War “leftist”, “radical”, whatever has been a term of redbaiting. This contined into the 1980’s with Kirkpatrick’s “blame America first” line-and even now, criticism or questioning of the war on terror is equated with “elitism”, “leftism”, anti-Americanism, etc.
One of the under commented on aspects of Hillary’s campaign is how her campaign legitimized attacks on “the left” from within the Democratic Party. Hell, it came from the so called “left blogosphere” in some cases. So we had the prospect of Obama having to run to the center to win the primary.
We aren’t willing to go anywhere and truth be told-really have no where to go.
Who wants the war on terror? This is a serious question. List those who want the war on terror and you will answer your own question about why the Dems don’t perform to your (and my) standards.
The only difference between activists and the Dem base is the distance of about 6 months which is when the lower information folks catch up with today’s information. We may seem like a small noisy group today but there’s a whole population standing behind us just waiting for the pony express to arrive with the newspaper.
Despite what people think – blogging is not activism that translates into votes. Voter registration drives translate into votes. Going door to door and making phone calls translates into votes.
But most people don’t hang out or even read political blogs. We write to each other – and it’s great for sharing information. But it’s not great for changing the world. That can only be done through offline activities.
l get your point lisa, but while the sentiment is well placed, you do it, and us by extension, disservice by implying that by seeking to share information and the solace that comes from the company of like minded persons here at BT, we aren’t doing anything.
if blogging helps keep the energy level up so that one may continue to be active in a generally thankless endeavor…so be it…having that support is important. further, l would posit that there’s a high level of real time activism being done by the people here. obviously, you subscribe to that, or you wouldn’t be here.
now that the national primaries are over, my attention is more focused on local races…the state senate race here is very much up in the air w/ a truly progressive candidate v a well connected limousine liberal, and the race for udall’s vacant seat in the house is shaping up to be a battle between a true progressive and a candidate who represents more of the same.
we ain’t sittin’ on our heels. all politics are local, and real change starts at that level.
my 2¢, ymmv
As you note, my own level of participation here indicates the value I find, personally. But I don’t want any of us to STOP here or get too comfortable here. Every second I’m typing here I’m not talking to someone who is more in need of what I know than this audience, who already gets it.
Make THEM unhappy.
I literally cannot WAIT for those ads hitting John Barrow. I want him to lose and lose badly.
I did a day’s campaigning work early this month for a group in town that works with the DNC. I stuck it out for the full day before I decided I was physically incapable of doing the work. Granted, that’s only a day’s pay, but they promised me over and over I’d get paid for it.
I called them today saying “Well1?!?”
I mean, it’s not a huge amount of money, but when you’re out of work, every little bit counts.
Oh, that’s a shame.
My advice? Send them a polite and professional invoice. Having a piece of paper for someone to write a check to will absolutely speed the process, assuming they really do intend to pay you!
The only policy victory for Democrats in the last two decades has been stopping Bush’s privatization of social security. Gore did a good making the argument in his run for President and the Dems actually put pressure on the caucus to hold firm when Bush was pushing it through Congress.
I can’t think of any other policy victories. Only defeats and half victories where Clinton took a Republican cause and made it into a Democratic cause (DOMA, welfare reform, habeas corpus and immigration ‘reform’, NAFTA, etc.).
The only other “victories” were the ballot box victories of Bill Clinton and when Clinton beat back being removed from office. The Democrats scored a “victory” by virtue of the Republicans looking foolish for their oral sex crusade. Oh, and the ballot box victory of 06. But we all know what that type of victory looks like. We just witnessed all the glory of what the Democratic sweep of 06 wrought–further capitulation to Bush.
There really is nothing to get excited about Democrats except for the HUGE fact they’re not Republicans.
Family Leave Act was probably Clinton’s greatest moment. Of course, that was sitting there on the shelf when he was sworn in, but he signed it.
Re: SocSec privatization. Steny Hoyer has a question on his website about it. Why would a Dem ask that question. Sort of like posting a question like: “Earth is flat. Yes or No.”