The least inspiring argument for voting Democratic in '08. Ever. But it may convince you

[jpgray]

I am become Cato, spammer of message boards

:P

You know that old asshole from the history books who kept rattling on about "Carthago delenda est?" Well my Catoism is "The GOP must be destroyed." And I'm going to keep saying it in my irritating, obsessive way until November '08. Why am I making a logorheic ass of myself? Why do I keep insisting people vote for a party that fails on almost every standard of mounting an effective opposition? Here's why:

1. The GOP are incredibly dangerous in a way the Democrats plainly aren't.

They initiate, defend, and promote the worst issues. That's obvious, but beyond that they are almost always able to unite as a voting block, and worse yet they do not hesitate to use the most radical, destructive political tactics available to further those universally awful and bad causes. That's the reason to fear and hate the GOP--they have the philosophy, ability -and- the unbending will to enact fascist policies.

On the flip side, the defects that make Democrats inept as an opposition party make them incapable of doing similar damage. There are too many diverse points of view, too many people who won't go along with such dangerous policies. If you look at any vote that all progressives truly hate with a passion, the majority of opposition will -always- come from the Democrats. Despite the contempt we all have for that frustrating disunity on votes such as the Cornyn amendment "condemning" MoveOn, it makes the Democrats far safer to have in office because they have neither the ability nor the will to enact truly bad shit without the primary impetus of the GOP. Why then should one vote for such an uninspiring party as the Democrats?

2. The nature of our crappy two-party system makes a Democratic vote the only vehicle for defeating the GOP in '08.

This one really hurts. Lacking a viable third party or IRV, we have an ugly choice when we vote in '08: either reward the war-mongers and punish the war-enablers, or reward the war-enablers and punish the war-mongers. Third party vote? Stay at home? That's a safe, neutral option to salve the conscience, yeah? No. Unless the election isn't at all close in your state/district, or a good third party candidate -does- have a chance to win, it's still significant indirect help to the GOP. It splits and dilutes the progressive vote. In my view, we need every vote in '08 we can get to bury the GOP, and voting in Democrats is all that will help. Why?

3. The media see the GOP as "the right," and they see the Democrats as "the left."

The media see -Nancy Pelosi- of all people as a major "San Francisco liberal" voice. They see -Hillary- as a "leftist." It's ridiculous to any true leftist, and any leftist would tell you that -both- our major parties are, in general, right of center. The GOP is crazily far right, and the Democrats are a good deal less so, but they are still nowhere near left. This media caricature is important because a GOP loss is seen as a loss for the right, and a Democratic win is seen as a victory for the left. That isn't strictly true, but that kind of media lunacy has a -huge- impact on the national debate and on public opinion, as anyone who suffered through election 2000 coverage can tell you. I can hear you ask "Doesn't rejecting the Democratic party as being too far right have an impact on the debate?" You'd think so, but...

4. Neither Democrats nor the media move left when the GOP wins elections.

So if you want to change the debate, -or- the party in the short term, GOP victory is your ultimate enemy. Blame the media for not analyzing elections properly, blame a lack of introspection on the part of Dem strategists, but in general politics is a chase after electoral success. When the GOP wins, even thinly, defeated Democrats seek to emulate that and the media and other corporate aspects of our system seek to parrot that point of view to win influence. Consistent, total defeat for the GOP over a number of years will do much to change the course of debate in this country, and it will empower the best Democrats while making the worst ones less relevant.

Thus, -in the short term-, the best way to defeat the horrific situation the country's in is to defeat the GOP as totally and completely as possible. For the long term, we need much higher standards. But in 2008, the GOP -must- be soundly defeated. If I didn't care very strongly about this, I wouldn't make such an ass of myself

[MadHound]

1. I admire your loyalty, but it is misplaced

Continuing to do the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result every time is a certain sign of insanity. I'm tired of being insane, as are many, many others. It has become increasingly apparent, in a way not seen since the Vietnam war, that the Dems are just as much part of the problem as the 'Pugs are, two corporate peas in the same pod. Voting for either party simply enables the corporate agenda to continue.

There are other viable, liberal parties out there that would actually do some good if only people will vote for them in sufficient numbers. As we've seen, the Dems are currently unwilling and unable to do any sort of good. Rather, they keep trying to bleed off public frustration and anger in a failed two party/same corporate master electoral process that achieves nothing but death and destruction.

[jpgray]

3. But isn't building a party that's solid top-to-bottom a long-term endeavor?

And barring a whirlwind switch of clout, wouldn't a weakened Democratic party and a burgeoning third party split the progressives and the center away from each other, while the GOP gains a supermajority?

[MadHound]

4. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't

The last time an American political party replace an incumbent party it was accomplished within eight years and the newly formed Republicans had their man in the White House pretty damned quick.

As far as the Dems go, they have had plenty of time to build this sort of solidarity, but sadly they've been breaking that via the ongoing actions for the past forty years.

And frankly, what is the difference between a GOP supermajority and a bipartisan supermajority that continues to vote in lockstep, as we're seeing now:shrug:

[jpgray]

5. It's not wholly lockstep (habeas corpus vote this week), but frustration is more than justified

My point of view on this begins and ends with ending GOP domination of our branches of government and our discourse. Democrats losing in significant numbers has not had any significant effect, and we have not yet succeeded in causing the GOP to -lose- in significant numbers. And the latter is something we can try in '08, while it's too late to lay the groundwork for a viable third party (by any historical standard including TR) for the coming election year.

[MadHound]

10. Yes, but the very threat of a massive third party groudswell can influence elections

Look at FDR. When he was facing a serious third party challenge from the Socialists during his first re-election, FDR felt the heat. So what did he do? He nicked a couple of planks from the Socialists, thus winning back many of those third party voters and victory. Good thing too, because those two planks he nicked were Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Third parties can influence the debate in many ways, including supplanting a major party if the have become ineffective or corrupt.

[jpgray]

11. Which third party currently poses a similar threat?

And I think your analysis of Norman Thomas, cool a guy as he was despite the whole eugenics thing, is a bit off. Certainly by results he never posed a serious threat--he received what, around 4,000 votes in his best showing vs. Roosevelt's 700,000+?

[Demeter]

13. Nonsense! That's Just a PR Campaign in Action!

Say it. Say it Again. Say it with feeling. But Say It until you prevail.

If it's good enough for Reagan, Gingrich, and the GOP, it's good enough for us. We have the advantage of saying the truth, so it's a lot easier to remember, and demonstrate, and convince the sane. The insane will take a little longer.

[lateo]

26. Bingo

You hit the nail on the head.

[unpossibles]

2. I heartily agree

I know we don't always see eye to eye (what democrats do?), but I agree with everything you've said here.

I don't think America can afford another GOP win without losing what makes America as good as it is, and even more importantly, losing what hope we have of becoming an even better place.

This is why I will support whomever wins the Democratic primary, even if they do not fully align with me. We can no longer afford to ignore the Greater of Two Evils winning because we've ignored the cold and hard facts of our current political system.

Does that suck? Sure. Does it need to be changed? Of course it does. But as you've said, we're not going to change anything by letting them win (or steal because it was close) another election.

To the people who say they will never vote for Hillary or Obama or Edwards because of ______, I say you are fooling yourself if you think that the alternative - President Thompson - is any better or different. We are still reaping the unpleasant rewards of unchecked "Mediocracy" lead by people who proudly proclaim that they don't believe in leadership while they secretly love authority and stealing our money and our rights and our good name.

[Robbien]

6. The DLC/BlueDogs are MORE dangerous than the GOP

because they meet in secret with GOPers to undermine the Democratic Party.

Thanks to the DLC/BlueDogs we lost privacy rights and thanks to the DLC/BlueDogs we will never ever ever leave Iraq.

[BlooInBloo]

7. You should start a DUers-for-Republicans forum.

[Robbien]

9. Why? I don't support the DLC/BlueDogs and they are

the biggest supporters of GOPers.

So if I ever happened to lose my mind and decide to like GOPers I would vote for a DLCer/BlueDog and get a GOPer in a Democratic mask.

[frylock]

30. how about a DUers-for Democracy forum?

[jpgray]

8. Can you name me a blue dog that didn't vote to restore habeas corpus?

If you regard that as an aberration (fair enough), don't you think having -fewer- Republicans to enable would remove much of the damage they cause? Those who initiate and promote the worst votes are almost always Republicans, while the blue dogs tend to only enable. That's horrific, especially since it's a breach of trust with their constituents and supposed party values, but to my mind enabling isn't as bad as initiating -and- actively promoting the worst policies.

[Robbien]

12. The DLC/BlueDogs are the ones working in secret with GOPers

Oh sure, every once in a while they will throw a bone to Pelosi, but mainly they are sitting behind closed doors with GOPers planning their next bi-partisan vote.

So those horrific GOPer bills you talk about easily gets plenty of DLC/BlueDog support while Pelosi has to go around pleading with DLC/BlueDogs to get a smidgen of their support for anything which is for the common good.

[Zodiak]

14. To many of us, you need to add "undermining", as well

That is the real sticking point. Enablement implies passivity, but undermining is active. There are Democrats who actively undermine the party by trying to demoralize their grassroots supporters and scuttling progressive legislation and progressive candidates before they even get off of the ground.

We cannot have any progress in the presence of active sabateurs. That is why I think th highest priority is cleaning the party of underminers.

However, that is not to say that your strategy and mine cannot be employed in tandem. We both can agree, I think, that the sooner we can get real opposition to the pukes, the better. Perhaps both strategies in tandem is the best way to achieve those ends.

We replace sabateurs with progressives and populists in the primaries and starve the underminers of funds, man-power, and votes. If we are successful in getting these two groups into the primaries (without the Rahm Emmanuels showing up and forcing them to quit the race), then we may not need to have to make a Sophie's choice later. But.....if all of the DU grassroots community would agree that this is what needs to be done and move towards those ends, then I will consider making a few Sophie's choices in th GE in the name of the greater strategy. However, if it is "vote for us this time just because we aren't Republicans, and we'll see what we can do for you later", then no, I am not buying because I know that will put the average Democrat exactly where we are now....unheard, unheeded, and taken for granted.

This is now 4 election ycles where we have employed failed strategies and allowed more underminers into our midst. This cycle of abuse has to stop now...not later. If not, we will find ourselves in the same position in 2010, 2012, 2014, etc.

[Individualist]

16. Absolutely!

The saboteurs want to turn (have turned) the party into a submissive branch of the republican party. I don't understand why supporters of such an organization are allowed on a Democratic message board. The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler.

[cali]

22. oy.

[ljm2002]

15. "The GOP must be destroyed"...

...yes, and ground down to dust and thrown to the four winds. In the political sense, of course.

I could not agree more with that premise. And I too see no alternative right now than working for and voting for Democrats. IF we win that war, then we can start the real pressure from the left flank.

All of that is assuming that things hold together somewhat, which is not a given. Not at all.

[jpgray]

17. Very true.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. I'm going to get flamed for this, but so be it

I don't know that I want us (by us I meant the Dems, liberals, progressives, Socialists, etc.) to do well in the elections of 2008. Which is why I've almost become ok with the idea of H Clinton being our nominee, since she will very likely lose what should have been a victory lap election.

Economically, things are going to get much, much, much worse before they start getting better. The republicans and their hench men have so utterly, totally, and completely fucked up our economy that it would take an absolute miracle for us not to go into the serious depression which by all accounts is almost imminent. Economists (the real ones, not the head up their ass School of M Friedman variety) have issued rather dire warnings for the US, and it looks to be rather bad for a few to several years. All of which, or the vast majority of which, is the republicans' fault.

AND I DON'T WANT OUR SIDE BLAMED FOR THE AFTERMATH ONCE IT HITS THE FAN JUST BECAUSE WE ARE IN POWER.

Call me Naderesque or whatever other insult anyone can come up, but you'd be wrong. I am not arguing that it needs to get worse before the American public wakes the heck up. I am simply saying that it IS GOING TO get worse, much much worse in fact, and the American people are by and large ignoramuseses who will simply blame whoever is in power when things turn south rather than look at who caused it. We still blame Hoover for the Great Depression, even though it was actually the policies of Coolidge that set things in motion. (I'm not arguing Hoover's response was good, just that he and his policies were not the *cause* of the Great Depression)

I think victory in 2008 is a double edged sword even more so than I did in 2006, so I think the party loyalists who are screaming about the end of the world if a Dem doesn't win or if evil people like me refuse to vote for someone like Clinton are overreacting a little. Maybe because I think we'll probably see the end of the (economic) world anyway.



And now I am fully prepared for any flames that come my way. :)



and on edit- If I thought that putting our party in charge would create an immediate end to the Iraq debacle, then of course my opinion would be different. I'd love it if our party could save the lives of those who will be lost fighting Bush's folly. Since our party leaders have refused to argue for immediate cessation of the war, though, I don't see that as the case.

[Macchendra]

19. And the Iraq war... (political cartoon)

Heh:

[lastliberalintexas]

25. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words

Thanks and welcome to DU!

[jpgray]

20. While we may catch a lot of the heat (the press being as it is), we need to fix things

And we need to start now. Too much is at stake here.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. It just really depends on when the collapse happens

Certainly if it happens before 2009 while the repubs hold the WH and the courts and Congress is essentially evenly divided, then we at least won't bear the brunt of the blame. My only concern is what happens if the economy maintains until we hold the WH and Congress, *then* the bottom falls out. Not a nice scenario.


And while I agree that we need to start repairing sooner rather than later, I doubt that the voters (because of media manipulation) will give us enough time to correct the situation if the collapse happens while we're in power. The "kick the bums out" chorus from corporate media would be deafening at that point, and the repubs would likely sweep both houses, quite handily, in 2010.

Unfortunately I am not Cassandra and my Magic 8 Ball stopped working long ago. I can only hope for the best, as well as hope that we all continue to keep the pressure on our Dems to good little boys and girls.


And thanks for the flame free response.

[MiniMe]

23. The problem is the SCOTUS

Ginsburg and Stevens are trying to hold out until January 2009. If chimpy gets another nomination, our country is toast. We need a dem president mainly for that reason. I know what you are saying, its going to be a hell of a mess to clean up. But if we lose 2 more SCOTUS seats....

[lastliberalintexas]

27. Personally I think the Court is only a short term problem

If the economic situation turns out the way most real economists think it will, then we are looking at another president with FDR strength being swept to power. At that point, the Court likely falls in line again or certain members are impeached and removed.


And while I've tried not to say anything bad about our Dems in this thread, I can't say I've been pleased with their "protection" of the courts over the last 6 years. That boogeyman argument no longer works for me anyway.

[Macchendra]

28. Yeah... very bad things could happen if the SC gets worse...

Man, I think of Jimmy Carter, the greatest president ever, and they way they put their mistakes on him. :-(
But we cannot let the Supreme Court sink any lower... even in the Democrats hands.

[unpossibles]

29. I agree, but I also think we need to put a stop to the damage

before the country bleeds out. If we "keep our powder dry" by letting them win just so we avoid the blame, then we are just as traitorous as they are because we're putting politics ahead of America.

While we may will be blamed for their problems by the corporate MSM whores, I would hate to think of how much lower we could go under the mismanagement that is the GOP. How many more have to die? How many more have to become impoverished and/or imprisoned? How many more of us have to lose our rights?

And a final note: who's to say that the problems now won't pale to the problems in 4 or 8 years after President Thompson? Would we not have even more to fix and more to be blamed for if we wait?

[cali]

21. Another excellent post

happy to k&r. It's a shame so many duers are bereft of the critical thinking skills we need at this time.

[jpgray]

31. DUers can think critically, but at times the emotion of a situation can override rationality

I wish I could say that phenomenon was just limited to those who disagree with me, (:P) but most of us are that way. The method for combating that I think is to make an obvious effort to understand the other's point of view and find the common ground, of which a lot exists for practically everyone on this board.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

32. I dunno, I've just about had it

Not in a drama queen, I'm leaving kind of way. But when I log in I find less and less to stay signed in for. Less information, less enlightenment. Too much opinion backed by too few facts. I spend more and more time at Talking Points Memo, and Media Matters, and even Salon which at least has Glenn Greenwald and Joe Conason. I spend more time at harpers.org - did you know that if you subscribe to Harper's you get access to their online archives dating all the way back to 1850? I spend more time reading and very little time arguing. Here there's less to read, but always something to argue about.

I know. It's primary season. But it's more than that, and it's worse than that. Emotionally, intellectually, and even physically, I am disheartened by everything going on these days.

[jpgray]

33. One of the problems is that calm, reasonable discussion can't compete

Which is not to say this thread qualifies! :dunce: But crazy arguments where people go all out for misinterpretation, lazy/dishonest logic, and absolutist black & white thinking do one thing very well: they generate replies. Extreme radical stances, contemptuous dismissal of opposing views, wild accusations of fascism/trolling, over-the-top error-filled historical analysis--this is the stuff that makes people want to post, post, post to either defend or attack. Acknowledging the good and bad points of a DU debate and trying to find the middle ground where most DUers -actually are-, despite their disagreement, is comparatively boring, and will of course drop off the page.

But once one or both people in a debate get off of trying to -win- and instead look at actual differences and actual common ground, a lot more rationality comes in and people agree a lot more. That sort of understanding and patience is, however, not quite as exciting as the alternative.