If we have only one party in Washington that believes in the basic functions and responsibilities of our government, our government will not long remain in recognizable form. So, basically, we probably ought to stop running progressives in the Democratic primaries and start running them in the Republican ones. May I suggest that we start with seats in our bigger cities?
Okay, the idea is nuts. But my premise is correct. Is it not?
Might as well. The Democratic brand is worthless anyway.
From Obama’s speech today: “When I said, “change we can believe in,” I didn’t say “change we can believe in tomorrow.”
No, he really said that. Really.
Yep, I can see it now. Obama’s campaign slogan for 2012: Change Your Great-Grandchildren can Believe In.
based on his performance and
lack ofleadership to date, l thought it was going to be WTF…whatever.It’s actually not all that ridiculous. Another suggestion would be to run progressives who speak Tea Bagger in Republican primaries, and then they vote like a progressive in Congress.
That’s actually a sensible idea. We have too many rotting eggs in the Democrats basket. Hell, in many respects, today’s liberals have a more conservative temperment than than the radicals in the GOP. Most progressives desire a judicious balance between the free market and government that is fair to a broad spectrum of people. Trying to leverage the Democratic Party to achieve economic and social justice through such a balance has not worked.
It’s not nuts, but it’s not easily done, either. In a closed primary state like Pennsylvania, you’d have to convince large numbers of progressives to change party registration to Republican just to vote for the progressive candidate, and thereby miss out on influencing the Democratic primary. Of course, in a city like Philadelphia, say, voting in a Democratic primary has a marginal effect on the type of candidate elected. However, most people don’t realize that and, anyway, there is a strong sense of self-image that goes along with being a registered Democrat. Those things would be hard to overcome.
The same thing goes for the prospective candidates. Getting people to the ballot is not just a matter of running people for the office, it’s also a matter of getting people elected to party positions. And that process is heavily regulated by the powers that be. Again, taking Philadelphia for example, there was an attempt by a Republican faction who were fed up with the corruption in the city party to take over a ward. They were promptly smacked down; their members who won their races for committeeperson were expelled by the ward committees.
Damn fine idea. Pick a progressive-a real one- let them speak Tea Party language, get them elected, and then they immediately change parties and vote like a progressive. The down size of this would be they may only get one term and when folks began looking into their background during the campaign they might notice they are progressive.
We gotta do something radical.
No changing parties! The point of what Booman is talking about is to pull the Republican party to the left the way the conservatives in the Democratic party have worked to pull it to the right.
Run them in areas where its super cheap to advertise…Focus progressive donors on those races.
I love the idea of resurrecting the idea of Liberal Republicans.
That really did exist once. New York once had a fine Republican Senator named Jacob Javits.
If you get down to it, my ideology is more entrenched with liberal Republicanism than Democratic…
In fact, Jacob Javits is probably a good representative for me.
Javits was a fine man. Al D’Mato was an unworthy replacement for him.
It would be fun to watch a primary challenge against Pete King of Long Island by a full-throated, vocal progressive.
But there are probably a lot of Republican back-benchers in near-progressive areas who are vulnerable to voter anger.
And then there are those that are napping in what are considered to be safe districts.
“If we have only one party in Washington that believes in the basic functions and responsibilities of our government, our government will not long remain in recognizable form.”
If the Democrats as they now exist nationally are your party, then you are by definition an enemy of responsible government since the Democrats are the flip-side of a rapacious extreme right wing which seeks the destruction of a working democratic society and its replacement by what is now nearly a fait accompli: an all-powerful financial oligarchy which tends toward greater and greater dictatorial powers over public life and the elimination of privacy in the rest of our non-public lives.
To focus on running “progressives” in Republican primaries does several ineffective or otherwise harmful things :
foremost, it diverts and delays people from the tasks of actually creating, building, an effective political alternative to the now single-party power elite which rules both Republican and Democratic party organizations. In other words, it wastes precious time in a non-productive way.
second, it’s a proposition which implies that “progressives” have so much in people and resources that they can afford not only to build a movement within their own friendly environment but also one in the hostile territory of the formal Republican structures.
That is delusional and reminds me of the wild imaginings of a patient which is so debilitated that, in the grip of desperate sickness, he starts to hallucinate wildly about himself and his surroundings.
Right now, the existing Democratic national party is the captured prisoner of the same forces and interests which run the Republican party–hence, there are no longer and for quite some time haven’t been, two opposed parties. To recommend, then, insurgent efforts in the formal structures of the Republican party rather than directly addressing the comatose state of progressive work in the Democratic party is another bad idea and, in addition, a desperate bad idea.
We have no intelligent, morally and intellectually “awake” public beyond a relative tiny handful of thinking people who are watching as the society is raped and savaged.
Start with that. You need, somewhere, somehow, people who are both informed and aware of essential facts about politics, economics and their interactions as well as democratic practice. People also lack the perspicacity to recognize who and what are the forces ranged against them and the furtherance of their social and political interests–except in a very crude manner. So,You don’t have these prerequisites and must create them through patient instruction. No one else will nurture and promote them so those who understand that have to do it. Everything about the present power structure will oppose and thwart that.
You’re not one of the ones who understands these things, however. You’re one of the lost and confused, unable to clearly recognize who’s beating the shit out of you and how they’re doing it.
Good premise. And I feel your frustration. The flaw with the idea is the amount of money needed to run in a Congressional race. That money almost all gets funneled through the party and party-allied groups: potential donors identified through voter lists and phone banks, soft money, etc. And neither party’s establishment would help a candidate do this. It’s the same financial impediment independent and third party candidates face.
You’d have to rely on grass roots and netroots enthusiasm, which has so far shown itself to be a more feasible strategy than 30 years ago, but not yet reliable enough in downticket races to swing an election most of the time. Or you’d have to be self-financed, which cuts down a lot on the pool of potential candidates, especially truly progressive ones.
P.S.
You need to carefully study this book:
http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/excerpt-how-the-rich-are-destroying-the-earth/
and the vital information at this site,
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
and, in particular,
this information in Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff September 2005 (updated July 2011) posted there in its entirety.
(All content ©2011 G. William Domhoff, unless otherwise noted. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.)
note the sections,
“Do Americans know their country’s wealth distribution?”
and,
“The Relationship Between Wealth and Power“
And, the “further information” and references at the article’s end are a treasure.
I like this idea. with tbaggers also running, progressive might win. and no need to switch parties later, make the republican party more diverse, less lockstep
right, you definitely you not want to switch parties. The whole point would be to diversify the GOP so our government could work again.
When I was in Austin Texas around 2004, I overheard a group of progressive voters openly discusing crossing party lines and getting someone else up for the governorship rather than Perry (I forget who,) becasue for all her faults she wasn’t as bad.
Its certainly an inteligent way of attacking the republican base, though you are talking long term benefits rather than a quick fix. Thats probably whats needed though.
One question I have: A lot of your analysis of the debt ceiling debate last week had to do with Boehner’s failure and how this whole debate hurt him so much and how it divided the Republicans. Do you still feel that Boehner was the big loser? I just saw a poll that shows Boehner polling ahead of Harry Reid and it seems that Democrats are just as divided as Republicans. What seems to have happened is that Obama is polling higher than everyone else, particularly among Democrats, especially moderates, but everyone else is unhappy. What about Independents? Kos is focusing on the low polling among Independents.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/cbsnyt-poll-congressional-disapproval-at-an-all-time-high
.php
on Boehner’s disapproval. maybe repub divisions?
sorry, comment about repub divisions should be deleted; my entire comment is a mess, posted in mid edit. Should read: is this the the poll you are referring to (to which you are referring?)?
I don’t know. I haven’t even looked at the polls, but polls right now don’t mean anything. Boehner showed that he can’t control his caucus or deliver what they feel they need. But, in the end, he’s able to claim a victory of sorts, and he’s soldier on for a while. He was saved by Pelosi, who put our country over Boehner’s incompetence. I mean, we actually would have defaulted if Pelosi didn’t intervene to prevent it. Boehner never had the votes in his caucus to pass anything.