Why progressive sensibilities get ignored in a presidential election

[jpgray]

This is my theory, anyway--not much to it really.

In recent history, even when pandered to, progressives are not able to elect a candidate. Now these definitions are a little murky, but even if you limit it to something concrete like Dean/Kucinich/Nader supporters, it still holds, because none of these candidates can amass enough votes to get anywhere on the national scale. Now some would note that Dean is not as 'progressive' as the others mentioned, but even he with a more mainstream kick was only able to build an impressive campaign and organziation--once the votes started the nomination slipped away from him.

The big myth is that the 50% of the nation that doesn't vote is waiting for something new, something not represented by the mainstream. Unfortunately, there have been several instances where they have had just that, whether in Kucinich, Nader, or in the more mainstream Dean--they do not come out in any significant numbers to vote for any of these folks. It's okay to say that the two parties have a hammerlock on 'electability' which effects Nader's numbers, but even in the primary progressives so often lose out over more 'establishment' candidates--why is that if most people want a progressive candidate who is different from the two parties?

In my mind, I try to take a coldblooded view to politicians--I don't trust that they have anything in mind beyond getting elected or advancing themselves. If their actions can be explained by either, then those are the motivations I usually attribute to them. Some (Kucinich is one) strike me as really being true to their statements and honestly trying to do what is right, but it seems to me most will stretch their values to get elected or advance themselves one way or another.

Given that, why should any politician court progressives? If we can't elect them, what good are we? We've had some great progressive candidates, and we can't nominate or elect one? I guess I can't expect a politican on the national scale to pander to progressives, because in recent years the history of folks who do that is not the most encouraging in the world. Whether through the influence of the media or just general ignorance, people are NOT voting for these candidates, and so long as that is the case I can't see politicians deciding to go with what seems to be a losing strategy.

What do you think? Is this the problem, and if so how do we start to solve it?

[JI7]

1. i know many non voters

many of them vote when it comes to american idol. they don't care to watch debates or other political things i do on cspan and other places. or read about it. most of them just aren't into politics. and i don't feel sorry for them or see them as victims who are being deprived of anything.

[BootinUp]

4. Bingo! American Idol you said it, lol

Seriously, its a lack of interest, detachment from world events, ignorance.

I could site other shows these people watch but I think I'll refrain. Not saying all folks that watch these shows are non-voters and dis-interested of course.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Because progressives don't get their message out to the actual voter.

The Nader strategy is based on threatening a candidate. But if he and his supporters went to the actual voters with their issues, and got support for their issues, the candidates wouldn't be able to ignore those issues.

I use the example of gay and lesbian activists with the issue of same-sex unions - here's something that like 6% or less of the population would register for, but the activists have won the support of many times that number and it's become an issue in this election.

And I don't think this strategy is simply effective, I think it's essential. If a candidate were to support a take on an issue that most of the voters don't even understand, then the right-wing could make up just about anything about the stand or it's implications and people may be inclined to believe it.

Participating in democracy is much more than just voting for someone who takes a stand with you.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

6. the best example is the prochoice movement

the prochoice movement worked hard to build up their constituency. not just of women but men also. they have shown that they can actually help get out the vote so politicians , especially democratic presidential candidates have an interest in supporting their cause. remember, abortion rights was one issue clinton never compromised on.he knew the prochoice movement was strong and would stick by him.

some other good examples are the religious right in the republican party. bush can't afford to lose them.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. Neither of those consituancies threaten the rich.

. It is the propaganda campaigns of the corporate media that are killing us.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

7. Unfortunately, the 'conservatives' do kick our ass at organization

I put 'conservatives' in quotes because their policies don't really fit the term, but you know what I mean. The Heritage Foundation and other various RW think tanks have no notable leftist or progressive counterparts--most of our representation as far as policy groups go are rather moderate. It seems that being disorganized is almost an accompanying feature of being progressive, and I think people are more enthusiastic about working for a change that is tangible, than the almost glacial change the conservatives have been effecting for forty years. I'm as guilty as anyone else in that regard, incidentally. :(

[BurtWorm]

8. For what it's worth: Statistics

http://www.widmeyer.com/Whats_News/20010312.html

The survey of 1,053 nonvoters and 859 voters, also showed that neither voters nor nonvoters seemed overly motivated by either of the major party candidates or their stands on the issues. When asked what was the main reason people decided to vote, how they felt about the candidates placed a distant fourth (11%) while the issues at stake were just (3%). According to voters, the main reasons they voted were:

Civic duty (35%)

Ability to exercise their right to vote (17%)

Desire to have a voice in who is elected (14%)

They either liked or disliked the candidates (11%)

They always vote (10%)

Because politics are very important (5%)


Given the nationwide civics lesson learned from the Florida recount, only three percent of voters said the main reason they voted was because they believed every vote is important.

According to nonvoters, the main reasons that kept them from going to the voting booths were:

Not registered (24%)

Didn't like the candidates (13%)

Had to work or were ill (8%)

Traveling or out of town (7%)

Not interested in politics (5%)

Felt their vote wouldn't make a difference or didn't know enough about the candidates (4%)

[BootinUp]

12. Lets look at some of those numbers

35% say they voted because it was a civic duty.

Only 11% said they voted because they liked or disliked the candidates.

These people just aren't paying much attention.

____

On the second part non-voters.

I don't believe much of what these people say, sorry. Its like a friend of mine I argue with, fairly intelligent guy, but hopelessly confused and ignorant. He sounds like a democrat 60% of the time, a republican 20% and a libertarian the other 20%. But he generally hates democrats. He has lots of facts wrong. Currently he claims he will vote for "none of the above". He doesn't even know which candidate lines up with his own views.

[JI7]

15. you describe it well

most people aren't going to admit they are not informed. but you get an idea of it when you actually talk to them. this one person claimed to be prochoice and supported bush. and when i said how bush signed an anti abortion bill they were surprised at it. but they weren't angry or anything like that. it was more of a who cares or it's not a big thing type attitude.

[BurtWorm]

11. The main reason for a Democrat to appeal to progressives

is to keep them from voting for third parties. What if Gore had maintained his progressive voice throughout the fall of 2000, instead of unaccountably stifling it after the convention (when he enjoyed his best numbers of the campaign)? Would some who voted for Nader have switched their votes, in Florida, for instance? Just 1,000 would have made a radical difference.

Remember, too, that in 1998, the Republicans got blindsided by minority and union voters who came out of nowhere to humiliate the GOP when they were planning on making a killing from the impeachment bullshit.

Progressives can be motivated to come out in force for candidates who appeal to them. Even Democratic candidates!

[JVS]

13. Not completely sure on your take

I doubt that right wing extremists could get elected without the cooperation of moderate Republicans so why are they given a cut of the pie?

Democratic moderates are much more into taking on leftist extremists than Republican moderates are into taking on rightwing extremists. Rightwing Moderates cooperate with their extremists so even if the RW extremist is not very appealing to RW moderates they can say "Well I might not like the bible thumping, but I still get my tax cut so I'll deal". This allows RWers to maintain a united front and win offices with the added bonus that the behavior of the representatives will be partisan and not cooperate with the enemies or RW voters (The Left). The Republicans base their strategy on a very wise strategy of giving something to everyone within their voting ranks and are generally successful at keeping people content. The Wall Street Republican gets his upper class tax cut, the Christian fundamentalist gets looser regulation of homeschooling, the American nationalist gets to watch war on TV. Moderates within the Democratic party seem to regard the left as a threat rather than a potential ally, and prefer to issue threats rather than tossing a bone towards the left. "If you don't vote for us the draft may come back" rather than "we'll make more financial aid for college accessable to promote your children's future", "They'll nominate pro-life judges and you won't be able to have abortions" rather than "We're going to get national healthcare" and "They'll start more wars" rather than "We'll end this one"

[jpgray]

17. But Bush did not campaign to the fundies in 2000

He has governed to them, but if you talk to the average 'informed' voter, they have no idea that what he has done is so close to that unspeakably craven agenda--if Kerry is trying something similar (and that is by no means clear), he is already getting excoriated by all sides--both the left and the right. It's clear the left doesn't trust him to govern to their values, and takes his centrist rhetoric now as what he actually intends to do--something Bush never had a problem with. So if the progressive left and our mainstream candidates for offices like the presidency are to have a relationship, we have a big problem in that neither side trusts the other. Kerry doesn't trust that progressives will win him the election at the cost of centrist voters, and progressives don't trust Kerry to govern to the left once he is in office. It's pretty difficult to fix that, but since progressives will be voting for him in large numbers, if he governs too far to the center, in my view he doesn't deserve to be reelected.

[JVS]

21. If you watched him closely you could see that he was campaigning to them

"Compassionate conservatism" is not a wave to the moderates, it is a nod to Christian fundamentalists who consider themselves to be the true protectors of society's most vulnerable members. Bush also explained his struggle with alcoholism in religious terms, in which he was only able to overcome the addiction with the help of the lord. It was exactly what fundamentalists love to hear. Compassion in this context is a message to fundamentalists who consider compassion to be Christ-like behavior. If one understands "compassionate conservatism" as "Christ-like behavior" there is no disconnect between running on a platform of "compassionate conservatism" and hoping to steer state funding to faith-based initiatives. One is a logical follow through of another. It was not the betrayal of moderates that some think it was. In much of Bush's speech there were allusions to scripture which went over the heads of non-believers. He was giving them the rhetorical secret handshake.

Meanwhile he was governing Texas in a conservative manner and allowed executions of prisoners to continue. By doing this he was able to send a message to hardliner "law and order"-Republicans (the crowd that looks the other way while Giuliani let his cops run wild without ever criticizing them, reagan loving, flag-waving, Rush listeners) that although much was being spoken of compassion, he was able to be a tough guy. Not executing people would have been a great way to appeal to moderate voters, but at the time it must have been more important to appeal to the "angry" conservatives within the party. (note that the angry conservative is distinct from the fundy, fundy=pat robertson, angry=newt gingrich type) He had other things to offer moderates without bothering his conservative base.

Big business got the Cheney nomination for VP. A sign of good things to come for them.

The moderates were tossed the bone of tax cuts. People like money, and middle class owner of a small business who is sending some kids to a pricy private college, and might not much like some of the religious zealots, or not be too keen on police brutality would probably be willing to get on board with the Republicans if they waved a tax cut at him.

On edit: I'd be interested in knowing how exactly he tried to appeal to moderates. It isn't anything I noticed much. The only people I knew who liked Bush were bona-fide conservatives. Maybe some moderates I knew voted for him, but they sure were quiet about it.

[jpgray]

24. Did you watch the debates?

"I'd be interested in knowing how exactly he tried to appeal to moderates."

It's all there in the transcripts. You'll find a lot of contradiction in what he said he would do and what he has done. According to the debates, he was a slightly more conservative Al Gore--he didn't believe in nation-building, he believed in protecting social security, and he didn't believe in stretching out our military to countries that resented our presence. It's clear he pandered to moderates, because the above statements do exactly that. He couldn't get elected with the fundies alone, he just had to trust they'd come along because they have no one else. He was right--they came along and got richly rewarded. He certainly did not trot out obvious neocon policy--in fact his statements during the campaign often flatly contradict what he has since done. The moderates won the election for him, not the fundies.

Also, his record in Texas was scarcely mentioned in the press--I'd be hard pressed to find any detailed analysis beyond the trumpeting of his education 'mircale'.

[JVS]

31. The debates were in October

By the time the debates happened he was already well established and liked among the GOP hardliners. All he had to do was flim-flam a few suckers in the middle and he had enough. But without the fundies and the angry conservative votes he'd have never made it to striking distance.

"He couldn't get elected with the fundies alone, he just had to trust they'd come along because they have no one else. He was right--they came along and got richly rewarded."
THAT THINKING IS WHY DEMOCRATS LOSE! The error is three-fold
1. Fundies and right-wingers loved W. They were glad to have him instead of McCain. They voted for him because they liked him, not because they had no one else. They did not just come along.
2. People who just come along don't get rewarded. People who have no other choice are not in a position to demand compensation
3. Of course one must swing to the middle towards the end because that is where the last undecided voters tend to be, both candidates tried that. But you cannot "trust" that they'll come along. You need to have them far enough in your camp that you can say a couple things that will ruffle their feathers a little, but that they'll already be commited to you and you can rely on them.


Getting down to details: yes the GOP cannot win with fundies alone, but I never said that the GOP base is uniformly fundies. I see 3 distinct parts of the base Religious fundamentalists, USA #1 Nationalists/ angry conservatives (the guys who go to gun shows and drive pickups with huge bald dagle stickers), and Capitalist ideologues (think of George Will). All of these are necessary for a GOP win. If one part goes missing the whole thing fails.

[jpgray]

32. Ok, now I see where you're going

But if your argument is that Bush triumphed over McCain in part because of fundie/hardliner support, then why did those Democrats who really speak to our base (Dean, Kucinich) fail to win the primary? Is it a question of getting the message out effectively? Increasingly, that's the way I see it--the debate is framed so antagonistically towards progressive values those who aren't paying attention have a bias against them without even realizing it, I think. On the other hand, fundie values get much better press by comparison--Russert's book for example takes great pains to outline his love of Jesus.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Because we have a vote your fears not your hopes system.

I would rather see Dennis or a Green in the Oval office but am voting for Kerry.

Why? Not because I like him but because I am stuck with him. He is the only option I have of getting * out of office.

[jpgray]

16. That's the problem with our system

To change the system, it's my view that we have to elect as many sympathetic people as possible--it's not clear to me that voting my hopes will accomplish that in the general election for the presidency, since the closest would be Nader and he can never win the election. I voted DK in my caucus because he was the closest to my views and I respect him, but my hope right now is to not have a Bush-run FCC, DoL, D and J, etc. If I were afraid I would just leave the country, but there are good reasons to get Bush out and good reasons to prefer Kerry over Bush.

[demosincebirth]

18. Many who don't vote are the ones that ...

complain the most. What I ask the ones who complain...did you vote? and if they didn't vote, they do not have right to complain. The more we get people to vote, the more we will be electing progressive candidates

[eridani]

19. Interesting commentary from Z magazine

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5739

If the Democratic Party on the national level is dominated by corporate centrists in the Democratic Leadership Council, for example, why not take them on where they live? Or help those who can. Or at least stop chanting that the only function of a Kucinich is — as several left critics insist — as a shill for the party that eats movements whole. While the “principled” left warms itself around a dying fire, the DLC is making history. Bad history, but history.

It writes policy papers that posit incremental improvements over the free market ravings of the right. But by giving token support for environment causes and backing some progressive social initiatives, the group serves as a lifeboat for aspiring officeholders — especially in the absence of any seaworthy lifeboats from the left from which to cling. It also grooms local candidates, understanding that the care and feeding of ambitious and entrepreneurial pols is a necessity. Its list of the 100 rising “New Democratic Stars” includes a slew of city mayors and county executives. These are people in the public eye who are responsible for producing for voters, and include such likely future Democratic superstars as New York’s Eliot Spitzer, Illinois’s Barack Obama and California’s Phil Angelides — all seeking or expected to seek top state jobs.

The DLC even puts out a ‘State and Local Playbook” it describes as “a ‘menu’ of effective, field-tested policy proposals from which model initiatives can be implemented in states, cities and communities around the country.” What is the left putting out — even that left that believes in realigning the Democratic Party? “U.S. Troops Out of Iraq,” or “Support Gay Marriages,” or “Defend Abortion Rights” are reactive programs that do not get to the heart of the American empire, harm the war makers where they live or deliver a body blow to sexual fundamentalists.

[union_maid]

20. Progressives don't try to win hearts and minds these days

If the "system is rotten to the core" meme is the only one they want to work with, they're not going to accomplish much. People essentially know that. They aren't going to sign onto a campaign to change everything because it doesn't seem possible and it quite possibly seems reckless to many. Progressives should be stressing concrete things that people can get their teeth into. Build coalitions out of causes. Think in terms of the big concepts, but organize around the specifics that affect people across the political spectrum. That would be the new millenium version of "Think globally and act locally." It's not such a stretch to get an awful lot of people interested in the rights of workers. The outsourcing debate certainly has caught fire. It wasn't progressives who brought that out into the light of day, though. It was Lou Dobbs more than anyone else. However, if you have a laundry list of things that are required to believe in before people can join your club, it's doomed to failure. You have to work with people who don't share a lot of your core values and try to convert them one idea at a time.

You can't fix society from the top down. You have to work from the bottom up to make progressive candidates resonate with people who are not voting for them now.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. We threaten rich people who own newspapers.

The abortion movement is successful because it doesn't effect rich people.

The Dean organization is only the beginning to turn things around. I believe they will elect candidates in the future because they have found a way to raise money without using millionares, and are willing to learn from their mistakes, unlike Nader. The next thing we have to confront is the neoliberal/neocon pundit/reporter monopoly. That is what killed Dean. Thankfully the war has discredited them, but you have to stick a stake in their hearts and start replacing them with good progressives like Palast, Hersh and Dreyfuss. Nader won't win because he is just stupid politically. If he had a clue as to how to gain power he might be worthy.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. What do you mean "we"?

You have always adopted and fought for the dlc plank. I think this is a demoralization peice.

It all boils down to money. We don't have that much, so we can't influence the media and the right wingers destroy our candidates. We have to overcome the corporate media. Dean provided a way to raise money for campaigns without the big doners. The next step is corporate media neutralization.

[jpgray]

26. I adopt and fight for the DLC plank? Evidence, please. (nt)

[Classical_Liberal]

27. Your argument is a dlc argument

You argue our message just isn't appealing without looking at the structural problems that make this the case. Ignoring the corporate media. Ignoring the lobbiest and the influence of big doners. Ignoring their ability to buy political advertizing.

My personal experience is that you frequently take this line as well.

[jpgray]

28. I'll try to be gentle

I make no claims about the message of progressives above, I only say they are unable to elect a president. This, historically, is true. I perhaps made a mistake in assuming everyone here is familiar with the problems you mention, but I had no idea I would be accused of being a DLC whore for that omission. In this post, for example, perhaps you could point out where I take the DLC line? I've been banging on about these topics for months. Where have you been? Again, where is your evidence? I would not make some claim about you unless I could substantiate it.

I would summarize the problem this way: the field of major candidates at this point are all certifiably wishy-washy on the major issues of the day. They won't repeal the Patriot Act, they'll "fix" it. They won't repeal NAFTA/WTO, they "fix" them. They won't touch the defense budget, but claim they'll keep and even build on social spending, and yet they all support the "war on terror". They are "committed" to Iraq, but are fairly silent on how the current personnel problems won't be "problems" when they're in charge. Compare the stances of Kucinich to those of the major candidates and you'll see why the left is fractured.

With the left fractured like this, it seems to ironically come at times when an Authoritarian movement is on the edge of acquiring great power. Take Germany in 1930, when Communist leaders were violently split from the Social Democrats (mostly due to the killings of party leaders by a Social Democrat defense minister). The Social Democrats had the most seats in the Reichstag of any group, and the Communists saw them as the real enemy as compared to the gathering Nazi party. Under the guidance of Moscow at this point, leaders like Thalmann declared that the Social Democrats were blowing Hitler out of proportion as a scare-tactic, and contended that Adolf was just a paper tiger. Thalmann stated that the workers shouldn't "miss the Social Democratic forest for the National Socialist (Nazi) trees".

After the election of 1930, in which the Nazis did extremely well, Thalmann declared it would be Hitler's "best day", and that only "worse days" were ahead for him. Thalmann died in Buchenwald. He could not predict that Hitler would be able to crush independent political movements in Germany--he assumed he would be able to fight them as he did the SPD, and more easily since they would polarize the population more with their blatantly corrupt and inept policies. I hope no one faults me for seeing echoes of Ralph Nader in this, who has stated that he preferred a Republican win for POTUS.

While leftist activism is possible under a quite bourgeois Social Democracy, it will soon be muzzled under an Authoritarian government. The independent media was destroyed, and the rest consolidated. The leftist groups were persecuted, and disenfranchised while their leaders were imprisoned once Hitler had acquired a steady power base. How did he acquire this base of power? By appealing to the nationalistic and militaristic tendencies inherent in all peoples. Using war propaganda and building fear and hatred towards shadowy "outsider" villains both at home and abroad.

What are we experiencing now?

Leftist persecution:

Others, like the Green Party’s Nancy Oden, have reported being detained by armed soldiers, or, like Green Party leader Doug Stuber, questioned by Secret Service agents, sometimes at such length that they missed their flights.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/27/02/feature3.shtml

Media consolidation:

On April 19, the FCC voted 3-1 in favor of eliminating the "dual network" rule, which had prevented one television network from buying another. This rule change will immediately benefit Viacom, which will be allowed to own CBS and part of the UPN network.

The other rule, expected to be lifted or amended in a matter of weeks, is the "cross ownership" rule, which prohibits a company that owns a local newspaper from owning a television station in the same market. Waivers have been granted in the past (Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. owns New York television station WNYW and the New York Post, for example), but watering down or eliminating the rule altogether has long been a goal of industry lobbyists.

http://www.fair.org/activism/cross-ownership.html

I'm sure you don't need a link when it comes to blaming shadowy "outsider" villains for our problems, or war propaganda.

I guess the point of this is, how do we bring the left together? Are there historical examples of repairing a fractured left? In my opinion, if we leave an Authoritarian group in charge for too long, we'll miss the chance to build an effective opposition, so I am resolved to work for even an ineffective opposition in this case. What are your thoughts on this business?

[Classical_Liberal]

29. I agree with that analysis

I am working for Kerry, but don't view my work as over when he is elected. I view neoliberalism as merely slowing down the process. I don't view it as a turn around.

[jpgray]

30. Well, in my view that's worth voting for

And there is where we probably disagree (I promise I won't post another of my longwinded threads on the subject ;-)). I recognize that much of Kerry's platform is depressingly close to Bush's, but I think that getting Bushbots out of the FCC, the DoJ, the DoD, and the SCOTUS is pretty important. What I usually try to make sure I say is that I have no idea if I'm right--this strategy could just make a coming disaster more drawn out and painful. I'm not as sure about any of this as I'd like.

My personal politics are pretty far from the DLC, but I do think that the current Democratic Party should be used, even in its current DLC state, to get Bush out. You mentioned Dean above, and I think his candidacy was a step in the right direction--but more than this, I think we need to organize more effectively to influence the party, or to create a new party. So far the third parties we have now aren't cutting it, and most of 'our' think tanks are pretty moderate.

[quaker bill]

33. First we need to select a candidate and all vote for him/her.

A very large problem with the progressive "movement" is that it is constructed, almost by definition, of free thinkers. This is a marked contrast to the hard core conservative movement. Most sociological studies suggest that the dedicated progressive/liberal core is very similar to the hard core conservative group in size.

However, conservatives accept discipline well and have no problem picking the candidate who best represents them and voting in a unified way.

Progressive / Liberals are free thinkers who do not take discipline well and consequently split their vote across a field of candidates. This most recent primary season is a fine example. If the anti-war progressives united behind one candidate Dean, Kucinich, or Clark and voted in a unified way, the results suggest the outcome could have been different. It is hard to be sure of the outcome, but it seems that the race would at least have been far more competitive.

However, the failure of a progressive "movement" to coalesce around a unified goal remains profound. As evidence note the continued support for the Nader dead end. Note the argument that a national election campaign is the place to build a viable "third party movement" which clearly fails on the merits but simply will not die.

If the progressive cause is ever to make a meaningful contribution to the national political discourse, they will need to accept discipline and compromise. This is required to form the sort of unity that will give their voices sufficient electoral strength to be listened to. However, since being on the margin of political relevance for uncountable years has not taught us this, I have no clue what it will take.