What is our responsibility in '08, when many Democrats in Congress have failed in theirs?

[jpgray]

There are mitigating factors in their failure (tiny, almost non-majority in Senate; disunity in their delegation; etc.), but the failure remains, even on the most crucial issues. Iran, Iraq, investigation follow-through, etc. There has been no glimpse of the strongest available legislative tools being used by our majority, on even those crucial issues, the Democratic positions on which Americans mostly support. And no matter how forgiving you are to the Democrats, that must be seen in part as a massive failure of leadership.

So some Democrats (not all), including the leadership, have failed to give progressives any good reason to vote for them. They've failed in their responsibility, so what is our responsibility? As voters we have a responsibility not just to our own consciences and hatred for the system, but to the country as a whole. Should we punish the Democrats at the risk of empowering the GOP? Should we hold our noses and support the lesser evil, implicitly supporting some very bad behavior? What are the risks and benefits of each method? Or is there a middle ground out there more sensible than either option? Let's take the two most obvious options one at a time. Today let's discuss punishing the Democrats.

Punishing the Democrats

Risks:

The lesser evil in this case is the only realistic check on the greatest evil, the GOP. When any progressive votes for a third party candidate who cannot win or refuses to vote at all, this indirectly aids the GOP. Further, protest votes of that kind do not amount to even a tiny blip on the media's radar. As we've seen with Nader or even a more substantial vote-getter like Perot, third party votes are viewed as an unimportant curiosity--the reasons and beliefs that cause those votes are never fully examined, and therefore do not influence debate. Democrats have lost an election due to a split progressive vote many, many times, and never do they move left to chase after those lost votes--they instead look at the GOP's success and move right.

The media in their deregulated state are even more ingratiating than usual to the party that will cut them a break, and the GOP have sold out so far that the DLC's mostly-sold-out technique is basically worthless. In this hostile media climate, progressive issues and candidate views on such will never get a hearing. Why is so much political coverage based on subjective image or "character" issues these days? Because it's an easy way to hide enormous bias. Look at the coverage of Gore, look at the coverage of Kerry, look at the coverage of Kucinich. None are attacked on the issues, they are attacked based on illusory character smears.

So essentially the two risks of protest votes are: they indirectly enable the GOP, and they do not stimulate any sort of move left. They get no traction in the media, and are studiously ignored (stupidly ignored!) by politicians. But before you say "Americans just want a progressive candidate," remember they've had several. If you take a look at Kucinich, Nader, etc.--all these were true progressive candidates out there fighting the good fight. They were either easily ignored or easily destroyed, and Americans did not vote for them in any significant numbers, despite polls that show continually that their stances on the issues are immensely popular. Thank the media for that.

Benefits:

You will go home with a good conscience, and you are voting your heart. The Democratic failure to properly mitigate the GOP's damage receives a just punishment--abandonment of the party responsible at the ballot box. You are not directly enabling -any- bad politicians. Your vote will to some extent empower a progressive third party.

NB: Please, if you disagree with one of the above arguments, give some reason for why you believe they are wrong. I am very interested in hearing alternative ideas and the justifications for them. Note that I do not want to outlaw criticism or propose loyalty oaths, but simply want to get the fairest assessment possible of the risks and benefits of different voting strategies in '08. I can't do that by myself, and I need the views and criticism of others. Congress has failed in its responsibilities, what are ours, and how best can we fulfill them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. 4 arguments.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

[jpgray]

2. If you can only vote for one who wholly shares your values, you can only vote for yourself

Easy example: Kucinich voted for the flag burning amendment. By a standard of following my principles exactly, I couldn't caucus for him. But I will. Because he is most in line with my principles. You must admit there exists -some- leeway, even if you believe the Democratic Party doesn't pass muster. Because in essence voting for any politician will never be a perfect expression of one's principles. Even Nader profits from the war, for example, via General Dynamics, Raytheon and Boeing stock.

I believe your reading of those quotes is disingenuous--one need not match one's principles totally to a party to vote for that party. If that party will be the most realistic vehicle for furthering and defending those principles, couldn't one argue that such would be a principled vote? And if your vote indirectly empowers a party totally opposed and destructive to your principles, is that still a principled vote? Is it a matter of personal effect or practical effect?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. There are issues and there are issues.

In another example. If faced with with voting for a "pro-life" Democrat against a "pro-life" Republican, I would vote for neither, even though the Dem was "better" on other issues.

I can, and have, held my nose many times, more often than not, but, at some point, on some principles, it becomes impossible to adjust my conscience for the sake of political expediency.

The knife cuts both ways. "The Party of Lincoln" became the party of the "Southern Strategy" when Republicans held their noses because their candidates needed to appease white southerners. Democrats held their noses so that LBJ could pursue a murderous war to prove he was "tough" on Communism.

We now have the "Blue Dogs" in congress who wag the Democratic Dog to preserve their seats.

We have been told for decades to be patient, to "work from the inside", to "look at the big picture". Meanwhile, the party has continued to move right and has become more the party of the center.

Was Gandhi disingenuous when he said, “In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.”?

[jpgray]

6. True. But would a larger majority of Democrats have a positive or negative impact? Or can we say?

When progressive candidates get buried by the media to the point they don't even have a fair shot at getting elected, and only those elected can make the needed changes to -give- those candidates a fair shot (media regulation, public financing of campaigns, etc.), does electing the most sympathetic legislature/president possible have a positive impact? Or is it too small an impact that carries too great a breach of ethics to vote for?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. When, by acquiescence, do we help perpetuate the system?

As you say, only the legislators can change the system, but they are the very ones who accept the money, the media control of the discourse, etc, which benefits them.

To my way of thinking, the only way to "change" the system is to resist it. I read an interesting article not too long ago that opined that the activists are negotiating with the wrong people. We are dealing with the middlemen while the real bosses sit back and control events. Not through some grand conspiracy, but through a convergence of mutual needs. The corporations aren't worried, or threatened, by the politicians, because they need the corporations to get them elected, the corporations need tame politicians to keep them afloat. They may prefer the Republicans as the most controllable, but will settle for the Democrats as the "lesser of two evils" because, despite their feeble threats to rein them in, they still have to kiss the hand that feeds them. If anyone in the charade are the "practical" ones, it's the guys who run the corporations. And, even they aren't really in control. They are merely trying to survive and doing what is necessary to do so.

What's the solution? Beats me. I'm just no longer willing to play my assigned part as a docile voter settling for the "lesser of two evils" and doing my small bit to actually accomplish something for real people in small ways that help.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. K&R for a thoughtful post.

[jpgray]

9. Yeah, I was hoping it would generate some discussion

Thanks for your thoughts, though.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Can't disagree. the progressive issues and ideas are made to sound bad and

the democrats have failed us. First we should try to weed out the DLCers. they need to be pushed before the republicans because they are traitors and in order to fight the other guys we need to know who the good guys are first.

[jpgray]

7. If the choice is between a DLCer and a GOP candidate, is that always a push?

At what point are their views similar enough that the advantages of a bolstered majority don't matter anymore?