It’s not that I disagree with Charles Blow because I don’t. But I am getting worried about the smug complacency on the left that we have won the argument and can rely on demographics to sustain our victory. In a system with proportional representation, that would be true. But we have only one alternative to the Democrats, and that is the Republicans. No, I don’t think third parties are viable, and they never will be in this country. To argue that the Republicans will never be back is to argue that America has become the way Mexico used to be, with elections that only one party ever wins. Even if this were true, it would represent a failure of our political system and not some victory for the left.
For evidence that we are not Mexico, look at the polls. They show an incredibly unpopular Republican Party with unbelievably unpopular leaders, and they show this party picking up seats in Congress. What does that tell you? In the long term, the GOP is going to need to change to become a majority party again. But, in a two-party system, you can’t afford to have one party that no one can trust with power. It’s a problem.
I’ll go back to a quote that some people attributed to Molly Ivins .. but which was actually made by Jesse Unruh: “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and still vote against them, you have no business being up here.” Until the Democrats confront that, they won’t stomp Republicans into the dust. I mean, lets face it. Even if HCR passes, will unions and the like be jazzed up to come out and vote? Not if that tax on “Cadillac” plans is part of the final bill. What do you think Obama’s approval ratings would be if he harnassed the populist anger out there in the country today? Back to his inaugaration highs(or close), I bet. When has beating up on the banksters ever been a political loser? Never!! But that is just one example. As much as we need another FDR type, we could just as well use a Paul Wellstone type gone nationwide. I just wish Bernie Sanders were 15 to 20 years younger.
Yesss ! And thanks for giving Jesse “Big Daddy” Unruh his quote back.
Maybe the Left should spend more time devising ways to attack the Republicans from the Right, from a right-wing perspective.
For example, all Republicans are in violation of their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Their loyalties are not to the Constitution, when they say they want the president to fail, their loyalties are to the Republican Party.
They do not seek to promote the general welfare, as the Constitution demands, they seek to promote the particular welfare of the monied class.
And they want Representation without Taxation, lower taxes for the rich, and extra-special representation which they buy with political contributions.
The thing is, Obama isn’t ever going do to what Calvin is suggesting. It is not in Obama’s nature to demagogue against people he considers important players in the success of the American economy (ie, banks, insurance companies) however popular or populist this action might be.
So the question for Democrats is how they can fire up their base in favour of (or in spite of) Obama’s “new way of politics” where he is trying to be bi-partisan, working together, etc.
Obama is, of course, right in his assertion that in the long run and larger picture, bi-partisanship is the way to go. But its a hard sell against this particular group of greedy, stupid, short-sighted Republicans. I believe that many of the 66 million who voted for Obama didn’t really understand the kind of politician they were voting for.
Also, there is this — I have read lots of stuff about how some of the right-wing opposition to Obama is actually racially-based, particularly the lack of respect for his legitimacy as president. I am starting to wonder if there is a racial component in some of the left-wing opposition too, especially in the determined denial or denigration of Obama’s achievements and the lack of respect for his competence in leadership. Speaking as an outsider, I think Obama is accomplishing a great deal and it is starting to surprise me that a number of left-wing Americans appear increasingly determined to deny it. Something to ponder, I think.
Very little(if it all) on the left has to do with racism. It’s all about what he’s done, or hasn’t done. so far. Stuff like reappointing Bernanke .. the sell out on the Health Care bill .. the weak tea of financial reform .. why isn’t Stiglitz running the Fed? or at least the Treasury?
That may be true but at least acknowledge that racism exists on the left albeit in a different fashion and to a lesser degree.
If you mean overall(meaning nationwide) .. sure .. just look at a place like Arkansas .. where McCain won .. (but Hillary would have wiped the floor with him) .. but I am stumped if you are talking about the blogosphere
There are progressives who are racists. Their racism is exhibited by their patronizing manner.
Democracies with single seat first past the post electoral systems tend to generate two party political systems, but there is no law which determines that those two parties should be the Democrats and Republicans.
Probably the Democrats’ greatest chance of success in November is to promote a new form of opposition to themselves, one which cannot be captured by the Republicans, but doesn’t take potential votes away from Democrats.
If (say) both traditional big business Republicans; and wingnut, racist, homophobic, religious fundamentalists get 30% of the vote each, then Democrats can win with only 40% of the actual vote.
So Obama should ignore “reasonable” “centrist” and moderate Republicans and seek to inspire the wingnuts to nominate head bangers against him (and them) who will draw votes from mainstream republicans but will, if anything, rouse the Democratic base to vote.
A dangerous strategy, you might opine, particularly if wingnuts win a majority of seats in the mid-west/deep south, and Mainstream Republicans elsewhere.
But what political choices does Obama have? Mainstream Republicans will never cooperate with his bipartisan overtures, and wingnuts would rather shoot him. So his only option is to divide and conquer.
Republicans are currently desperately trying to ride the wingnut horse, the better to control it. Obama’s strategy has to be to so enrage the wingnuts as to encourage them to unseat their riders.
Perhaps the current “bipartisan strategy” is intended to do just that – to de-legitimise Republican “moderates” in the eyes of wingnuts – but Obama needs to tack hard left in his actions from the summer onwards.
He won’t achieve anything legislatively from then onwards anyway, so his lack of a progressive majority is not much of an issue. After that he needs to rouse the Democratic base, focus on their policy/executive action objectives, and, most important of all – drive the wingnuts absolutely crazy.
Fortunately that doesn’t appear to be a very difficult task, but if Obama is to be a true national and transformational leader, he needs to shape not only the Democratic party, but the Republican Party as well.
Then, when the Republican party is splintered and demoralised, we might actually see a populist opposition party emerging from Obama’s left – in much the same way as the Liberals have moved to the left of New Labour in the UK.
That doesn’t mean that progressives will win. But they might just displace the GOP as the major opposition party. The alternative is that we get a wingnut dominated Republican party that is so toxic that the Democrats rule by default for a generation.
Not great for democracy, but preferable to a new form of Nazism.
What I am trying to get at it in these last two posts is that our elite institutions are not our natural enemies and that they are now actually functioning as our allies (at least in strictly political terms).
The Democratic Party hasn’t really moved in any particular direction, but they have become home for what used to be called Eisenhower or Rockefeller Republicans by default, as you describe. In other words, the entirety of our elites, from academia and R&D, to the MIC, to the business community, to the bureaucracy itself are now inside the tent trying to fix or not fix the problems the country is facing. That’s why people like Chris Buckley, Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, Robert Gates, etc., are now in Obama’s tent.
What used to be two parties fighting it out has now become one party with the opposition consisting of a wholly obstructive 40% that has nothing constructive to contribute and which holds no interest to our elites.
If the Republican Party were ever to disappear and the Democrats become the single dominant party, within two years a faction of Democrats, the rump Republicans, and possibly some “third party” folks would form a new party.
Parties in the US are not like parties elsewhere. US parties are more like the governing coalition and opposition coalition in multiparty nations.
I don’t see many signs that the GOP is going to disappear. It is currently poised to gain enough strength to grind our government to a complete halt.
Dems and Reeps, those twin sons of different mothers, are both shrinking at a time when the middle is growing rapidly. Agreed that both parties will remain somewhat intact, but each will have to accommodate formally organized ‘wings’ going forward. Votes will be for the ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’ candidate, with party affiliation writ in small print. Approaching the time when congressional campaign committees stranglehold may be broken in both parties. Their call.