Why are our Democratic office-holders such shrinking violets?

[99th_Monkey]

Why is it that Democrats, regardless of how progressive they talk before their election, so often fail to follow-through, leaving progressive voters stunned and disillusioned?

In particular, I'm thinking of the blatent ongoing GOP/Rovian election fraud going on during this election cycle, when we've had 6+ years of supposedly "progressive" Democrats in the WH, DoJ and FEC. I'm thinking of Guantanamo still being open, and the shameful way that torture has become a mainstay for our defense and intelligence agencies. I'm thinking of how most of the Wall St. Banksters who broke the economy to line their own pockets are still walking free with OUR money in their Cayman Islands bank accounts. You get my drift.

15 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Dems get corrupted by wads of corporate big money
	10 (67%)
	Once elected, Dems become afraid of being "suicided" by our Shadow Gov't if they don't carry Mega-corporate water
	0 (0%)
	Dems have forgotten their progressive roots and have become more obsessed with keeping power than with the progressive agenda.
	4 (27%)
	This survey sucks because it's based on a false premise, i.e. Obama has "delivered" on most of his "promises" so progressive whiners should just suck it up and get over it.
	0 (0%)
	Other (please elaborate with comments below)
	1 (7%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Maedhros]

1. Why should they follow through?

The rank-and-file will continue to vote for them regardless of their actions, or lack thereof, in favor of progressive causes.

[NM_Birder]

18. politicians aren't much more than door to door salesmen,

selling lies to get your vote, then telling lies in office to get re-elected, then hiding lies to keep from being held accountable for the crimes committed while lying as an elected official.


All. of. them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. I'm thinking because ...

for any "Democrat" to say/believe this, as a basis for complaining about Democrats:

when we've had 6+ years of supposedly "progressive" Democrats in the WH, DoJ and FEC. I'm thinking of Guantanamo still being open

There would be no pleasing ... you get my drift?

[sabrina 1]

10. How about connecting SS to the Deficit, when every Dem knows that is not even

possible? Dems were the ones who traditionally defended SS from the Right Wing attempt to privatize it. Now Dems are on board with the Right Wing lie that SS could ever be connected to the deficit.

Or how about 'forever war', or bailing out Wall St. Criminals, and moving forward from War Criminals?

How about calling torturers 'patriots'?

How about lifting the ban on Offshore Drilling, explaining it by attempting to paint the 'left' as 'behind the times' since technology had advanced since the ban went into place, making accidents far less probably, 18 days BEFORE the 'left' was proven to be right, when 11 men lost their lives in one of those 'improbable' accidents and he Gulf was destroyed for years, perhaps decades or more to come?

How about enhancing Bush's disastrous 'Education' program, instead of as expected, ENDING IT, and again, helping the Right Wing privatize and essentially begin the destruction of the Public School system?

I could go on, but that's a start to demonstrate the total state of denial some are are in regarding WHY Dem voters have lost faith in their party leadership. Those who continue to try to minimize these huge issues simply cannot do so.

So you think it's all about one thing? Maybe it's time for this party to finally start LISTENING to those who vote for them for a change, rather than Monsanto CEOs and Goldman Sachs crooks like Jaimie Dimon. How many Progressive leaders have been invited to 'advise' the WH over the past six years?

No, it isn't just one thing. It is many, many things that have adversely affected the people and which the voters had hoped when they threw out the Repubs who were responsible for all of these policies, Dems would begin the process of reversing them. Instead, Republicans were appointed to key positions in a Dem Cabinet. Why were Dems not appointed to eg, National Security positions? ARE there no Dems capable of handling our National Security??

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Notice how you left out what I wrote? I did. eom.

[procon]

3. Needs an 'All of The Above' option. nt

[99th_Monkey]

5. I Agree.

Thanks for the suggestion. This late in the polling however, I'm not sure I should.

But thank you for posting anyway. You have in a way created that option w/ your post.

[MisterP]

4. the corporate money is there so that the corporations eventually cultivate pols

who do their bidding without the money at all

[99th_Monkey]

6. If not for the money, then why do the pols "do their [corporate] bidding"? nt

[MisterP]

21. why, ideology! there's three nice big categories of human motivation:

interests (i.e., profit and bribes), institutions (structure, social context, hegemony), and ideas (ideology, mental context)

these books are great because they document not just how a system gets corrupted, but how the money is used to take over people's very thinking and language: pollution can mean progress and clear-cutting becomes jobs and science!

http://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Sludge-Good-For-You/dp/1567510604
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585421391/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Other: Because they're perpetually afraid of losing the election that happened 10 years ago.

This is why certain "inevitable" 2016 nominees seem to have decided that the most pressing question the US Electorate has for them, is "which Bible verse is your favorite?".

Because winning 2004's all-powerful* "Values Voters" is still apparently paramount.


*They weren't, actually, all powerful then, they're definitely not now.

[WhiteAndNerdy]

8. The second option is interesting.

My father, who is a little bit prone toward CT-thinking, has brought your second option up as a possible explanation for why presidential candidates make all kinds of promises that they later seem to forget. He said maybe once they're in office, someone pulls them aside and says, "Remember JFK?"

My own view is a mixture of cynicism and pragmatism: Some politicians will say anything for votes, whether they mean it or not, and others perhaps start out with good intentions but find that they are hamstrung by political realities. I tend to see Republicans as the "will-say-anything" types, like the ones recently who are trying to hide just how extreme their anti-choice views are. I think Dems are more likely to be idealists who want to follow through but can't because there isn't enough support.

[hifiguy]

23. I have toyed with the "remember JFK" theory for years

but am now convinced that his assassination was orchestrated by the Mob and right-wing Cubans affiliated with the CIA but not a part of the institutional CIA. I think the ideological collapse of the Democratic Party was the result of the DLC selling the party to the 1% back in the 1990s.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. I don't know what ever gave you the impression that Obama was a "progressive"

I knew when I voted for him in 2008 that he'd be a centre-right moderate. He was still the best candidate with a realistic chance of winning. Sometimes that's the most you can hope for.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Thank you ...

That's what I was attempting to get at in my post at #2.

Besides the ""Failure to Close GITMO" cannard ... who has ever thought we have had we've had "6+ years of supposedly "progressive" Democrats in the WH, DoJ and FEC"? ... Other than "progressives, seeking to make a fallacious argument, I mean.

ETA: If that were the case, what have the vast majority of political posts on DU been lamenting?

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. The one thing I find interesting, really...

is the way that a lot of our self-described "progressives" seem to have paid very little attention to what Candidate Obama actually said. He never said "I'm anti-war", for instance, or "I don't believe that military force is a viable option for pursuing foreign-policy goals", or "I propose that we nationalise the banks and the oil companies", or "I'm going to put all the bank executives who took advantage of the lax regulatory environment created by previous administrations in prison"; a lot of people seem to've HEARD those things, but he never said any of them. It's also kind of troubling that a lot of people don't seem to understand the nature of Presidential power; a President is not an absolute monarch, he can't rule by fiat, there are things to consider like "what can I get past Congress?" Considering that the Democratic Party never had a filibuster-proof majority and that there are a substantial number of Blue Dogs/conservative Democrats who'll vote with Republicans on a substantial number of issues? The achievements of Obama's presidency are quite impressive. "Politics is the art of the possible", after all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. ++1 ...

I have a less than charitable explanation for all of that ... but it would get hidden and me PPRed.

[sabrina 1]

13. Maybe because he ran on a Progressive agenda? Such as protecting teachers

and SS and opposing Mandated insurance, supporting the PO, ending torture, in fact I cannot think of one issue on which the President did NOT sound like a Progressive Democrat. Hillary LOST because she supported Mandated Ins, stated she WOULD support Committees to look into the Deficit, eg, while Obama called such Committees 'an end run around the Constitution'.

It's interesting how people appear to forget the reasons why so much hope was placed in this President by Progressive/Liberal Dems and Independents and are now 'blaming the voters' for not being able to see into the future. It isn't working mainly because Dem voters are not stupid enough to accept that argument, which is essentially confirming why voters are disappointed, perhaps inadvertently.

[99th_Monkey]

19. +100 ~nt~

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. That's nice, did he have a Congress that would vote for all of those things?

See what I said about people not understanding the nature of Presidential power.

[sabrina 1]

48. Yes, we won the House, Senate and WH. Remember?

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. Nope.

There were never 60 votes in the Senate (and thanks to Republican obstructionism 60 votes have become necessary to do almost anything); in the House? Subtract the Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats and there was never really a majority there either. The lack of party discipline and effectively whipped votes in the US system is as much to blame as anything (along with the Senate requiring a supermajority to get anything done).

[Cha]

42. "Center right moderate".. I call bullshite. You don't call this Progress.. as in it's Progressive?

Paul Krugman: In Defense of Obama..

But now the shoe is on the other foot: Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008

Again, Progress.

"For the 2014 Election, Use This List of 269 Accomplishments by President Obama, Democrats"

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

He's also been busy signing Executive Orders that no "center right" pol would be doing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

[lovemydog]

55. Mahalo Cha. I vote for Democrats too.

In an often hyper-critical world, I do believe that voting for Democrats is the best we can do. Would I like to see more populist, more leftist, more progressive Democrats? Hell yes! And take note: I'm an unwavering supporter of President Obama. I also vote for the most progressive possible candidate in every primary and local election. In State elections like this one I vote for Democrats who care more for education and a much better balanced tax system and raising the minimum wage.

[merrily]

51. Are you UKian or USian, or both?

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. Both? Not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

I live in the UK (and have for some years now); I'm a US citizen and vote in US elections.

[merrily]

54. Sorry. I noted the UK spelling convention and was curious.

I apologize for asking. My being curious does not give me a right to ask a personal question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Because they're, first and foremost, politicians whose goal is to get at retain power.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[mopinko]

15. they are being spied on.

private conversations that i have had with people who would know lead me to believe this. not a tinfoil type person. but i honestly believe this.

[99th_Monkey]

20. You don't need a tinfoil hat. The CIA has admitted to spying on Congress

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers

So there's no reason to believe otherwise, and this probably means they spy on the WH as well. That's why they are referred to as the "shadow government".

[mopinko]

24. true shit.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. I voted "Other" because I think it was the smashing of Socialists and Communists in the 40s and 50s

that removed a significant 'further-left' alternative for progressive Dems. Sure, one can choose to swing to the radical fringe boutique parties of today that garner no more than 1% of the vote generally speaking (save for the Seattle City Council and a couple other spots), but when one has only a realistic choice between Dem centrism and out-and-out Republican neo-fascism, most non-fascist adults will vote AGAINST the greater evil.

I'm no expert in poli sci, but I think the way politics has traditionally worked in this country is that, should a major force develop on the far left (like, for example, Socialist Alternative in Seattle), the major political parties start to move in that direction. Without that force on the far left, the major parties have no incentive to tack leftward and will remain safely and securely in the center, their campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.

BTW, the decision not to close Guantanamo is far more complicated than mere Dem 'shrinking violet-ism,' imo. That may be grist for another thread, though. There are more than enough villians in both parties for that particular set-piece.

[99th_Monkey]

25. Thank you for weighing in.

It's just too much sometimes to reflect on how utterly predictable it is, regardless of how "left" a candidate sounds on the campaign trail, to then watch them tack abruptly towards the center once they are elected. <--THIS is why SO many people on the Left have simply given up on politics altogether IMHO.

An THIS, in turn, is why the Dems may loose the Senate this election. Sad that.

[KingCharlemagne]

28. Yeah, the thought of McChinless at the Senate's helm for two years makes

me want to , if only for the skeezy visuals of him and Boner cavorting and kvetching together.

But my views of these mid-terms tend a bit towards the unorthodox (maybe). To wit, let the Whackjob fundabillies have control of both houses of Congress for two years. They will so fuck things up that the resultant Dem tsunami in 2016 will make 1932's look tame by comparison.

They're going to shut down the government because President Obama refuses to agree to allowing people to lose their health insurance? I so fucking want that little scenario to play out in time for 2016. I don't really give a shit whether Hillary or Sanders is our nominee. We will control both houses of Congress then for at least the next generation if not longer.

As to why people 'give up on politics,' I've learned that politics is really hard work and requires incredible self-discipline, qualities which I possess in too-short supply. I mean just the act of precinct-walking for a candidate or issue is numbingly boring and tiring, but absolutely essential. And that's at the lowest possible level (the only level at which I've ever really been involved). No disrespect to leftists or progressives but a lot of them are not willing to put in that hard work and instead expect instant magical gratification. And politics, at least American politics, don't seem to favor instant gratification. (Probly a good thing that, although I do sometimes wish we had a parliamentary system where votes of confidence could be forced.)

[NM_Birder]

17. When politicians,, ANY politicians are not held to the same

standards, not subject to the same laws, and are not expected to survive in the shit soup they legislate the rest of the population into, then " WHA HAPPEN" becomes the common chant.

Look into how many rules and laws our political "leaders" impose on the citizenry, yet exempt themselves out of, you see they were never "violets" to begin with, just good enough liars to close the deal on your vote.

[99th_Monkey]

26. Good one.

Thank for pointing this out, about the double standard for pols and the rest of the citizenry. I'm sure this plays a huge part in disillusioning the electorate ... and who can blame them really?

It's so painful to watch this crap year after year, as it represents the slow death of democracy in the USA.

[hifiguy]

22. The DLC.

It didn't need to live that long - just long enough to sell the party to the corporatists, billionaires and 1%ers. Fuck 'em all with a three-pronged hay hook.

[99th_Monkey]

27. They "sold" the party to the 1% alright

To the point where it now seems to be a nearly wholly-owned subsidiary of the 1%.

Thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

[F4lconF16]

29. It's a mix of both 1 and 3.

Money is addictive, but so is power. I think in a lot of cases, power is the primary motivation.

[99th_Monkey]

30. Yes, I wish I had provided more

options ... like "all of above" and/or combinations as you suggest.

I think it's 1, 2 & 3 personally, so I should have put that as a choice.

Next poll I do I'll ponder adding more options as you suggest. Thanks
for your reply.

[F4lconF16]

31. I would agree that there is something to be said for #2.

That actually brings me to a thought I had the other day, that I was going to make an OP on: when is it okay for a public office holder to act against the people's best interests because of fear of personal harm or retribution? ("Personal" including nearby family, friends, etc.).

[99th_Monkey]

33. I'll look for it

your OP that is.

I don't know if you've been following how the CIA Torture Papers have been withheld from the US Senate,
despite lawful requests and demands from a Senate Committee on Intel, but here is how bad that has
gone, i.e. CIA admits spying on US Senators, so it's not a big stretch to imagine that "troublesome"
Senators may have "an unfortunate accident' of some kind for their trouble.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers

[F4lconF16]

36. I haven't made it yet :P I'll pm you a link when I do.

Good link on the CIA spying. After what has happened to some people in this country, either disappearing, or dying at a suspiciously convienient time right before a trial, or any number of things, I don't doubt that threats have been implied, at the very least, and made explicitly in some cases.

[99th_Monkey]

39. Cool dat ~nt~

[Puzzledtraveller]

35. Some aren't democrats.

That is to say they run where they can win, they are the career pols, they pick a side, like a role in a film then play that role. Because they lack the conviction of those that really care, they are easy to spot, they do not feel compelled to fight for much. Once they have been in that role for a while they begin to feel like they do not even have to act the part anymore, they have a (D) by their name and you will vote for them.

[former9thward]

37. Exactly.

Our parties are not politically or ideologically based, they are geographically and demographically based. If you are in a highly urban area you run as a D. If you are in a more rural or suburban area you run as a R. It matters not what you really believe or usually even what you say. That is why Ds in a state like Kentucky are going to be pretty conservative and Rs in a state like MA pretty liberal.

[sendero]

38. Republicans....

.. actively and openly work for the 1%. Democrats are just afraid to piss them off. The end result is pretty much the same.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Because of fickle supporters.

If our guys aren't saints, we prefer their guys.

[Eleanors38]

43. I voted #3; #1 necessarily follows that.

[TransitJohn]

44. I voted the first option, but

it's not like they are corrupted. They are just playing the game; i.e., you need to hustle up money to get elected. We need full public financing of elections, and an election season of 3 months (not a constant one) now.

[SoCalDem]

45. In a nutshell

WE are a diverse party with MANY factions.. real ones.. and our politicians always campaign scared..

They are always trying to be everything to everyone..

republicans use coded language to appeal to their base..they can do it because they have dwindled to a micro party, which has a voting-participation of greedy racists, bigots, and haters.

The money-men on the right don't give a crap about their issues..they want TAX relief and no rules, and they will give whatever it takes to get their folks elected. All they have to do is to scare enough ignorant people into voting against their own interests, and they win..

Our side actually has supporters with principled people (donors and voters) who often get pissed off if they think their particular issue gets a short shrift..and they stay home

[nc4bo]

46. #1 & 3. Can't choose. nt.

[HereSince1628]

47. Other. Office holder behavior is multi-factorial, if you can label major axes

that those factors fit into then you maybe could poll about groups of factors.

I think the labels of two such multifactorial axes might be DLC/3rd Way and Progressive.

doing that you could get contrasts such as these hypotheticals....

Progressive: Committed to principle; DLC/3rd Way: Committed to triangulation
Progressive: Wants change NOW; DLC/3rd Way: Ok to wait for change
Progressive: Less tolerant; DLC/3rd Way: More tolerant
Progressive: In the oppositions' face; DLC/3rd Way: In Progressives' face.
Progressive: Wanting to suppress regressives; DLC/3rd Way: Wanting to suppress 'the far Left'
Progressive: Populist; DLC/3rd Way: Elitist (DLC was a by invitation only organization for 'successful' politicals)
Progressive: Concerned with issues on Main St; DLC/3rd Way: Concerned with Wall St, Pacific Rim,

[closeupready]

49. Big $$$ pays them off

Legally, perhaps, but effectively, that's why.

[merrily]

52. I don't believe Democrats are shrinking violets.