Progressives Pay the Price for Confusing a Party With a Movement

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Progressives Pay the Price for Confusing a Party With a Movement

by David Sirota

The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive "movement" have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one.

Though the 2006 and 2008 elections were billed as progressive movement successes, the story behind them highlights a longer-term failure. During those contests, most leaders of Washington's major labor, environmental, anti-war and anti-poverty groups spent millions of dollars on a party endeavor-specifically, on electing a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. In the process, many groups subverted their own movement agendas in the name of electoral unity.

The effort involved a sleight of hand. These groups begged their grass-roots members-janitors, soccer moms, veterans and other "regular folks"-to cough up small-dollar contributions in return for the promise of movement pressure on both parties' politicians. Simultaneously, these groups went to dot-com and Wall Street millionaires asking them to chip in big checks in exchange for advocacy that did not offend those fat cats' Democratic politician friends (or those millionaires' economic privilege).

...

As we now see, union dues underwrote Democratic leaders who today obstruct serious labor law reform and ignore past promises to fix NAFTA. Green groups' resources helped elect a government that pretends sham "cap and trade" bills represent environmental progress. Health care groups promising to push a single-payer system got a president not only dropping his own single-payer promises, but also backing off a "public option" to compete with private insurance. And anti-war funding delivered a Congress that refuses to stop financing the Iraq mess, and an administration preparing to escalate the Afghanistan conflict.

...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/04-9

[WCGreen]

1. Well stated!!!!

[Donkeykick]

2. If This Continues...

It will severely damage the Democratic Party too!

[sabrina 1]

22. Sometimes I wonder if that would be a bad thing.

A new and real Democratic Party could be the result of all this. We should remember that it was we who helped them get the majority they have and put a Democrat in the WH.

I saw on the news today that Obama's numbers have been in 'free-fall' all summer. Probably an exaggeration but his handling of this issue, the dismissive references to the 'far left' by members of his staff, and the continued insistence on catering to far right wingnuts under the guise of 'bi-partisanship' when it is clear to every thinking being, that no matter how much caving is done, these fringe elements will only demand more, is losing him the very people who made his presidency possible.

The drop in numbers most likely reflects a loss of confidence by members of his own party. For too long they have taken the base for granted and turn to them only during election season. Not that we didn't notice, but the specter of the only other choice, benefited Democrats up to now. We were willing to push for a majority, to remove all the excuses we heard for eight years. And now that has been done. They have no more leverage from the claim that 'it's not our fault, we need a majority, we need a Dem in the WH'. It's the end of the line for them.

But the alternative is still a powerful motivator to either stick with them for more of the same, or think seriously about a new party.

I could see staying with the idea of voting for the Dem in the presidential election, but concentrate on getting Independent candidates for Congress. And instead of all those small donations going to the Party's choice, send them to good candidates like Bernie Saunders eg, who actually do represent the people and are not beholden to Corporations.

But one thing is clear, they can no longer take the base for granted. I will not be donating money to any candidate chosen by the DNC. We have no role in those choices and with Rahm Emmanuel who has in the past worked actively against real progressives and pushed Blue Dog candidates, I don't expect anything to change. Unless they know we are serious this time. Not just whining and then caving in the end and voting for them out of fear.

[ut oh]

41. For the first time in my life

I'm thinking about sitting out an election.

The lack of passing any progressive agenda added on to the waffling about a public option/single payer in this whole health care debacle has really changed my view on our 'party'.

At this point my belief is every politician is bought out and no matter how much yelling/screaming/begging we do, those with the ability to pass legislation will only cater to the corporations. If we take Musolini's definition of Fascism, we're already there.

[katkat]

53. how to tell

What disturbs me, besides this whole mess in general, is I had no idea Obama was going to be a DINO. Perhaps that's the problem of his having no track record to speak of, and my being dumb enough to believe what he said.

For decades the very left has been saying, no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, vote <something else>, and I've been saying you're crazy, you think Bush is the same as Gore, and I've been voting Democratic. Now, finally, I am no longer prepared to vote Democratic (okay, I would if Howard Dean ran.) Now I'm voting Progressive, and with track records.

[dotymed]

78. SABRINA, MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY

I know this is D.U., but we need to start NOW to field a GREAT
Progressive candidate. Bernie and Dennis are the ones who come
to mind. We need to ask them if they would be receptive to the
idea. NO MORE CORPORATE RULE. We have to get PUBLICLY FINANCED
ELECTIONS.

[sabrina 1]

81. What I would like to see

is the progressive side of the party take over Congress. I agree completely with you on Kucinich and Bernie Sanders who are already there.

Why should we be pushed out of the party? Why not work to push out

those who have none of the values that drew people to the party in the first place?

During the primaries there was so much focus on the presidential election and so little on the Congressional races. As a first step, don't know if you'll agree with me, in the election that is coming up, Blue Dogs and others who are compromised by corporate financing who are up for re-election should receive some serious challenges with no money from the base going to anyone who has sided with the right.

I know the pleas for money will be coming from the DNC. I intend to respond by telling them 'only when I see an effort to rid the party of those who do not support the vaulues of those who put them in power.

I have no idea how candidates could be chosen to challenge some of these Dinos. I know we'll hear the same old arguments 'we can't get a progressive elected in that district and we need a majority etc. etc. Well, it's true you can't do anything if you don't fight for it.

As for the president in 2012, imo, I'd be satisified to see Obama win a second term, on several conditions, that he get rid of the DLCers like Rahm Emmanuel and put some more progressives in his cabinet. Congress is more important. If we had a truly progressive Congress, the president would HAVE to pay attention to party's base. As it stands now, there are just aren't enough real Democrats to give us a real majority. Having a 'D' after your name doesn't make you a Democrat.

The real grass roots was taken over by 'pacs' donating often to candidates who were not progressive. Candidates taking money, and many of them were, from big Corporations don't need our money.

There isn't much time until the next election.

I do agree with you though, something has to change and watching the healthcare debate so far, it's not very encouraging.

[dotymed]

88. IDEALLY, IT WORKS FOR ME

Any way that we can truly get some real progressive
representation is great with me. When the "labels"
are removed, the majority of people want the same thing.
Unfortunately, the wealth provided by the lobbyists stand in
our way. So does the "brainwashing" of the
"librul" media..lol

[Mari333]

3. knr

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Needs to be shouted from every damn roof top. K&R

[Laelth]

5. Interesting and thought-provoking. Recommended. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[FarCenter]

6. There is no "progressive movement"

There are a number of progressive movements. In the OP it identifies "major labor, environmental, anti-war and anti-poverty" groups. These groups have significantly divergent memberships and people who care deeply about one thing, may not care or may have conflicting views about another.

[rucky]

9. I'll have to agree with that.

hence the cat-herding analogies.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Oh, the conservative and corporate/centrist dems will miss us.

No more guilt trips. :thumbsdown:

[jwirr]

35. I have no problem fitting into all of those categories.

[fascisthunter]

7. well, then, the Democratic Party can kiss my ass

[dgibby]

8. Excellent article. This should be required reading!

It's the old Washington shell game, isn't it?:mad: And the average citizen doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning!

[Individualist]

10. Sirota nails it, as usual.

[PSzymeczek]

39. I love David Sirota!

Smart and hot! :loveya:

[undeterred]

11. The Democratic Party Platform: Healthcare for all

Healthcare for All

The American people understand that good health is the foundation of individual achievement and economic prosperity. Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children's education, workers' productivity and businesses' competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable. Doing so would end cost-shifting from the uninsured, promote prevention and wellness, stop insurance discrimination, help eliminate health care disparities, and achieve savings through competition, choice, innovation, and higher quality care.

Health care reform must also provide adequate incentives for innovation to ensure that Americans have access to evidence-based and cost-effective health care. Research should be based on science, not ideology. For the millions of Americans and their families suffering from debilitating physical and emotional effects of disease, time is a precious commodity, and it is running out.

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/american_dream/affordable_health_care/

[FarCenter]

12. I don't see either "single payer" or "public option" anywhere in the platform statement

This platform plank could be honored by legislation that includes neither.

[undeterred]

13. I see "affordable" and "all".

If that can be done without a public option, I'm ok with it. But I don't think that it can.

[mmonk]

17. Exactly and that is where the politicians depart from the platform

because the plan won't cover everyone and I haven't seen where it will correct the cost problem without at least, a true public option. So either the platform is dishonest or those that run on it are. As someone who works on platforms at the state level, I can pretty much tell you where the fault lies.

[jwirr]

36. Having gone to caucus meetings and worked on platform planks

I would say it mostly reflects the wishes of grassroots activists - the question is do our candidates actually support it as they say they do?

[BR_Parkway]

44. No - they actually laugh at us - as in, where else are they going to

go?

Even more revolting, when Pelosi was asked on July 31st if she worried that progressives in the House would yank their support of the bill because of the sellout to conservatives, she literally laughed out loud. "Are the progressives going to take down universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans?" she said, chuckling heartily to reporters. "I don't think so."

The laugh said everything about what the mainstream Democratic Party is all about. It finds the notion that it has to pay anything more than lip service to its professed values funny. "It's a joke," complains one Democratic aide. "This is all a game to these people — and they're good at it."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/4

[Donnachaidh]

33. it CAN'T be done without a public option

Because quite frankly, the insurance companies have had DECADES to finesse how to SCREW with their customers, with language and foot dragging. THEY have the upper hand, and they know it. This administration and any other Democrat that thinks these for-profit companies are going to play fair because they are asked to -- well, they are either ignorant or complicit with the companies, and have made some sort of back room deal for themselves for contributions.

I wonder just how many uninsured right now CANNOT buy insurance ANYWHERE - because of genetic disorders, or pre-existing conditions. This is NOT being addressed -- the insurance "lepers". The ones the insurance companies wouldn't insure in the past, and if forced to do so in the future, may offer it to seem like they are complying - but will find a way to price these people out of the market, all the while maintaining that *we gave them coverage, but because of the cost, we are FORCED to charge them such and such*.

Not once have I seen CEILING CAPS addressed ANYWHERE in all this wrangling. And language DOES count. I would think the Dems would be very aware of that - thanks to the beatings they have taken politically by spinmeisters. They are NOT working for the good of EVERYBODY. They are working to push out the least possible bill, shredded to bits because of political payback - and hoping no one will notice that they are being blown off and will settle for another horrific piece of shit similar to Medicar Part D.

The Dems may not be aware of the political damage they have already brought down on their OWN heads, RIGHT NOW, because of the vacillating and handwringing, while the pukes have a field day creating zombie apocalypse health care rumors.

No amount of Oprah shows, no amount of catchy little catchphrases are going to stop the anger at the polls next time if they don't do the right thing for the people on THIS issue. There are millions unemployed, millions without healthcare because of it.

People don't want happy fuzzy spinmeisters telling them about green shoots. They also don't want spinmeisters telling them the recession is almost over, because there were *only 400K jobs lost* this month, as opposed to close to 600K the month before.

They WANT healthcare without corporate paybacks, without triggers, without having to *settle* for crumbs from the medical industrial complex.

And if our government doesn't *get* this, they'd better *get* that their time in their new cushy jobs may be short. Because those same people who came out in droves because they wanted healthcare last time, may very well come out in droves again, to vote out those who didn't keep their promises.

[katkat]

54. one problem with that

One problem with that - in order to vote them out, we have to vote someone in. That means we need progressives running all over the place.

[Donnachaidh]

57. and you don't think progressives are already aware of that and working towards a solution?

This is a defining moment for them. AND the democratic party.

[katkat]

59. well, no, I don't see a lot of that happening, just in a few spots. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

61. if this administration pushes through the crap they have been hinting at

There's going to be a shitstorm.

[Ignis]

93. Great explanation. Please consider a new OP with this info.

:hi:

[bread_and_roses]

62. Please. "Affordable" is a code word. It means private provider.

It means the consumer pays directly, not through progressive taxes - as that, goddess forfend, might take the tiniest nibble out of our Corporate Masters and Overlords profits. This is what a one-party system has done to us - made many of us accept their box, their frame, their terms of debate, their boundaries, without realizing it.

[Political Heretic]

14. The first paragraph ought to be seared into the minds of everyone forever.

"The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it."

Think that may go in my sig line.

[waiting for hope]

37. +1 zillion ...

[stillwaiting]

49. Both parties are loyal to corporate interests...

One of the parties throws a few scraps to the American people, but they have only been table scraps. Dinner, no a FEAST, is served to the wealthy and corporate interests.

In addition, the table scraps do not come close to outweighing the damage done to the American people from pro-business legislation that has passed under Clinton (and possibly now Obama).

[blindpig]

15. k&r n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

34. Here's a quote from Sirota pre-election

"But all that is less important right now than the duo's binary framing. They both (McCain and Obama) effectively say a vote for McCain is a vote to continue Reagan's trickle-down tax cuts and free-market fundamentalism, and a vote for Obama is a vote to resurrect Roosevelt's regulations and redistributions. And because this choice has been made so clear — because we know what we're voting on — whoever wins will have a huge mandate to implement the ideology he thematically represented. That's why conservatives are so worried."

[bread_and_roses]

63. Yes, and that is exactly what was happening before the election, and why so many of us

who do not buy into "the Democrats will save us" were willing to put our faith in Obama - in part, yes, because of who he is and where he came from, but even more because a victory for him would signal that the public was indeed demanding change from the Corporatist agenda. That he has managed to both undermine that mandate by his own actions and to allow the Oligarchs to seize the high-ground with much of the public has to stand - purely judged by political strategy, forget everything else - as one of the stupidist moves any politician in living memory has made. Not to mention the endless harm it is doing to ordinary people.

[blindpig]

91. Not stupid

It's why he was hired. all of the vetting, all of the corporate 'contributions'. He's doing what his bosses tell him to do, and they ain't us.

[mmonk]

16. The problem isn't progressives or a lack of a coherent movement.

Progressivism is a movement without representatives that wield power. They listen to politicians in order to try and figure out which ones won't betray their votes or at least will try a different angle. The angles of politicians many times are dishonest and misleading except for the far right. Progressives and their movement are trapped in a system without moral courage and one that runs on greed and monied power brokers. In order to move forward, progressives may have to become more willing to take risks and sometimes engage in peaceful disobedience when the power structure does not listen.

[jonnyblitz]

19. good post , particularly the first sentence. nt

[ShortnFiery]

26. Bingo! "...trapped in a system without moral courage and one that runs on greed ..."

Spot on! :thumbsup:

In order to move forward, progressives may have to become more willing to take risks and sometimes engage in peaceful disobedience when the power structure does not listen.

[Selatius]

45. Your words remind me of Martin Luther King, Jr. There was a man who led a movement.

Today's activists could learn a thing or two from the previous generation. They have become too oriented on top of a political party than oriented on fighting and, if need be, bleeding and dying for a cause or a reason regardless of any party.

However, I fear that some amount of the progressive movement has been nothing but front groups designed to undermine the movement by simply convincing folks to vote for the establishment instead of going outside it and applying pressure from the outside-in like in the 1960s.

[democracy1st]

18. K & R and these clowns actually think they don't need liberals/progressives

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. K&R!

[girl gone mad]

21. I suspect personal donations will be WAY down..

in the next election cycle. Disappointment and diminished enthusiasm because of the complete failure on the part of congress and the administration to achieve any real progressive change, coupled with the ongoing economic malaise will greatly reduce contributions to Democrats. On the other side of the coin, Republicans have managed to work the moonbats on their side into a complete psychotic frenzy and I suspect more than a few of them will be selling organs to raise money to defeat the "socialist nazi" party.

[scentopine]

27. We need to loudly exclaim, in unison- No change? No cash!

[Doctor_J]

28. Mine will be

no more money, no more walking the neighborhoods.

[scentopine]

23. Write to the DLC hold them accountable...

I swear they are republicans - the best trojan horse maneuver ever.

This one of the best eras for corporate welfare and the special rights of rich people in the history of America.

[PassingFair]

66. "best trojan horse maneuver"

More like "trojan horse MANURE!"

[ShortnFiery]

24. IMO, oh ... so ... true.

:(

[Kermitt Gribble]

29. Fool me once...

I guess we've been fooled twice now - '06 and '08. I preidct the 2010 and 2012 elections will have a much smaller turnout for the Dems. A good part of the base is going to stay home or switch to a 3rd party.

[mike_c]

30. very nice to see this actually articulated....

I've been saying this for years-- liberals should be loyal to ideals, not to parties. Or at least they should only be loyal to parties that actually work for liberal ideals, not those who just want their votes because "the alternative is worse."

The democratic party has NOT done especially well by liberals, especially during the last couple of decades.

[Synicus Maximus]

31. I for one would love to see a true progressive party.

I don't think we could win the White House, or even a majority in congress at first. But I think a real progressive party could win enough seats to influence policy and sooner or later even a majority.

[TommyPaine]

32. I had shed my youthful idealism by the time I was 25. It's about the lesser of two evils.

We shouldn't pretend that it's otherwise. I wasn't voting for HOPE and CHANGE and all those buzzwords. I was voting for responsible, intelligent adults whom I knew would compromise and remain beholden to interests incompatible with my views. I do worry about the level of compromise, however, and I worry about how powerful certain interests are becoming. Those are the two concerns we should focus on.

There are other choices, too—vote for parties that have no chance of winning, or don’t vote at all. Nothing wrong with either of those options.

[WeDidIt]

38. The Democratic Party is about to become a victim of its own success

I suspect '10 will make '94 look like a huge Democratic victory if things keep on the same course.

[slay]

40. Well then - the Democratic party may lose me all together if they don't get with the movement

For real. They are doing the exact opposite of what we need them to do!

"As we now see, union dues underwrote Democratic leaders who today obstruct serious labor law reform and ignore past promises to fix NAFTA. Green groups' resources helped elect a government that pretends sham "cap and trade" bills represent environmental progress. Health care groups promising to push a single-payer system got a president not only dropping his own single-payer promises, but also backing off a "public option" to compete with private insurance. And anti-war funding delivered a Congress that refuses to stop financing the Iraq mess, and an administration preparing to escalate the Afghanistan conflict."

Pretty much says it all. :grr: :mad:

[cascadiance]

46. Perhaps we need a big symbolic day and leave the Democratic party as independents on that day!

I made a point of registering as a Democrat (after being an independent for many years) the day after Howard Dean took over the DNC. Wish I had more people to do the same with me then now in retrospect.

I think if we find another day in the future (perhaps if we announce a new party and get the progressive Dems to switch) and on THAT DAY we all switch our party registrations to that new party, then hopefully those numbers will be visible to the pols monitoring such stuff, and they'll realize that the progressive movement is leaving the so-called "Democratic Party" behind because they've crossed the line one times too many in screwing their base because they thought they "owned" us!

The "herding cats" problem of how to organize this is the biggest challenge, but I think there's a lot of motivation for this out there now, especially if we get screwed with health care "reform".

[Canuckistanian]

42. He's right

A lot of people organized, advocated and fought for an Obama victory becuase they wanted radical change.

And what did they get? Well, It's hard to say exactly.

But it ain't radical, that's for sure.

[suzie]

48. I thought that a lot of people fought for an Obama victory because

the alternate was very, very dismal.

[bridgit]

43. That is the straight forward read

:kick:

[fasttense]

47. It's interesting that Obama takes immediate action on Glenn Beck's word's

but the liberal base is told by his chief of staff to shut up.

If we hold the bush accountable for 9/11, we must hold Obama accountable for his administration's actions.

So far very little of the progressive movement's agenda has been implemented.

Who exactly is Obama listening to? It certainly isn't the movement that won him the office of the President.

[Piewhacket]

50. Very excellent and thought provoking commentary.. But please Orwellian_Ghost...

I could not quite tell what parts were David Sirota's article and
what parts were Orwellian_Ghost... I was obliged to refer to
the orig article and carefully read it to sort out that no
comments by Orwellian_Ghost appear and all is from Sirota's
excellent article.

I explain that the delineation of quoted material must be clearly made,
in our articles or it risks undesirable confusion ....

Normally her in DU quoted material is commented at bottom by the member.
I always thought that a quite proper and effective custom, it shares not
only the material OF NOTE TO A DU MEMBER, but also the insight of the
member placing the article on the board. THIS is why I read DU, and
its members, for I want to know why members thought the matter important.
That is as important to me as the article. I read because it matters what
other progressive members are thinking, and whether it should be endorsed,
opposed, or more generally discussed. That is community. That is DU.

In addition, it is important and ethical for DUers to to properly
(carefully) attribute quoted material, as well as to stay on the right side
of fair use of quoted material. Naked quoting of extensive portions of an
article, especially without any commentary, raises questions about whether
fair use has been met. Additionally, although improper attribution is not illegal
in the USA, it may be illegal in parts of europe, and is generally considered
unethical in academia everywhere. Further, although an author may often feel flattered to
be noted and quoted, NOTHING BRINGS FURY to an author faster than the use of their
material without proper attribution, or worse, ambiguity of source, or more outrageous,
appropriation by another. Nothing brings legal action faster if there is the slightest
possible merit.

Here the article quoted is another superb commentary by the well-known and articulate
David Sirota. I was most grateful to this drawn to my attention, and Orwellian_Ghost
is a distinguished DU member who I find worthwhile to pause and read. Here I simply
explain that the deliniation described above was not as carefully done in this case as it might,
that it led to actual confusion, and that is multiply important to get this point right,
particularly in original posts.

I hope my comments will be of benefit. Best regards.

[xchrom]

51. kick

[jmodden]

52. The New Left needs a new party.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus could serve as the node to crystallize this new party.:patriot:

[katkat]

55. send money

There's a list in wikipedia of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Assuming it's accurate, send these people money, and say why when you do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

[TheKentuckian]

56. Progressives fail to recall history, civics class, or much logic

You demand radical changes in a system that is designed to slow radical change. You demand a 100% party line vote on legislation of epic scope. You have no patience or tolerance for politics. You pretend that theoretical possibility and probability as the same thing. You lack resolve for long term efforts. You have no sense of context on where we are as a country.

Many have no idea that this is actually difficult. We have tried to do less and have failed. One must accept the possibility of failure and be prepared to get up again rather than give up at the first set back.

[PassingFair]

65. You sound like a slavery apologist.

Progressives do not fear the "possibility of failure",
we fear that we will never get the chance to START
THE FIGHT.

If we fail, we will "get up again", have no fear on
THAT score.

We need representation that FIGHTS for the PROGRESS.

It looks like we are closer than EVER, with the MAJORITY
of Congresspeople belonging to the PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS.

[misanthrope]

69. The system doesn't always hinder radical change...

...It didn't impinge change for FDR's New Deal. It didn't hamper change Civil Rights or Medicare. It didn't prevent change over the last three decades when drastically destructive conservative agendas have met little resistance during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[rockymountaindem]

76. The system did hamper civil rights and Medicare

Why do you think it took from 1948 to 1965 for Medicare to become law? Why did the Civil Rights movement last from, say, the Emmit Till murder in 1954 all the way until now (unless you accept that there is no more racism or discrimination in society)?

Yes, in the American system it takes a long time for anything to change. That's the way it's designed. Case in point: if it didn't, social security would have been privatized by the Republicans in 2005.

[misanthrope]

83. Medicare became law once we had a POTUS who would play hardball...

...The Civil Rights Act was signed into law a decade after Emmit Till was murdered, less than a decade after the "official" movement was started. As far as current prejudices, there's only so much you can legislate.

I know how and why the system was designed just as I know how and why those checks and balances can be circumvented or negated. Thing is, the conservatives rarely seem to have a problem hastening changes, such as the radical things that unfolded in the Reagan era. Only the left is told to be patient while the right ravages the nation.

[Romulox]

89. Well, the skids were surely greased for the trillions handed over to the banks...

That "radical" transfer took place with the quickness! :hi:

[WillyT]

58. That's About The Size Of It...

:banghead:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Which is a helluva good reason to vote for policy rather than party.

What progressives have accomplished by holding their noses and voting for the "lesser of two evils" is to fortify the status quo of a corrupt government.

[Chef Eric]

64. Why do we love Sirota for parroting Nader, whom we hate???

Seriously, Sirota is saying pretty much the SAME THING that Nader has said for years.

O.K., let the flaming begin.

[mdmc]

67. don the suit my friend

flame resistant suit that is

[sabrina 1]

68. No flaming from me. Hard to admit, but Nader just

came to his conclusions ahead of us and we weren't ready yet. As for Sirota, he has been villified in the same way Nader is on a Democratic board that is supposed to be 'progressive' also and was basically driven off in the most vicious way.

He is not the only one, any real progressive voice that has an audience, has been driven away or banned from that same board.

There is a real effort from elements claiming to be the so-called left to suppress voices like Sirota's. They do not want a 'left' and it was a shock to me to see it so blatant on a board I always thought was progressive. Now, I think some of these boards were set up to contain the 'left'.

Nader was right, I hate to admit it. The vicious attacks on him always bothered me, but I didn't agree with him that both parties were the same except for a few differences. Now I think he may have been right.

[FreedomTrain]

70. Democratic Underground is part of the problem

The rules state your allegiance must be to the Party first and foremost. Championing ideas or people not grounded in or associated with the Democratic Party is not allowed. Since the Democratic Party is obviously not progressive to any real extent, where does that leave this site? This site should take a few steps away from its allegiance to the party and change name to Progressive Underground or Liberal Underground.

[caseymoz]

73. Bullshit. Democratic Party is a pretty wide umbrella in my book.

Political parties are, at the core just clubs of people with common interests, (but with certain serious goals). One would think you have certain reason for joining and continuing to be a member of a club. I mean, why would you join a Bridge Club with purpose of convincing its members to switch to Poker?

Not that there isn't dissent. But I don't think you're putting yourself outside of party bounds if you come in here and say something like you think there should be more free enterprise in health care.

Here's what's compatible, and dissent on most of these and agreement on just a few would still make you a "democrat":

Environmentalism-- seeing that there's a danger at least to our continued thriving on earth if we don't take some environmental measures, though . Skeptical about Global Warming, though? Different opinion and questions should welcomed here, though some members get snarky about it.

Pro-choice/anti-choice and whatever you call it: Not exactly a Democratic or Republican issue, except if the Pro-Life position is held due to fundamentalism. Debate on it should be encouraged.

Health care reform: this is the great cause of the moment. There's a lot of room to debate about the form it should take, but if you're dead against it or if you think liberals are going to turn it into a power grab, or if you think the government shouldn't be involved because the government never works, go to the Matt Drudge website.

Right to keep and bear arms (aka 2A as in Second Amendment): I myself am pro-2A, even if I think the myths and rhetoric pandemic on the pro-2A side are sounding psychotic right now. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Those are some. Just don't come in here and say something like Obama is a Nazi. Say you're disappointed, or say you don't agree with him on this, or that he is too moderate and lenient on corporations, or some other opinion. Don't say the RW insane.

I think I disagree with other people a lot, and I've never had any problem voicing my opinion here.

[cornermouse]

74. Why can't you say the right wing is insane?

Why shouldn't you be able to say the right wing is insane on a democratic website? Pro-choice is traditionally a democratic position and has been one of the main planks of the party from many, many years. And finally, having had someone shoot over my head I can think of someone who should be banned from keeping an bearing arms.

[caseymoz]

79. That was a typo, a sentence garbled with insomnia.

I'm a trained journalist, meaning that I need an editor sometimes.

I meant to say, don't just copy the RW insanities and pass them off here as discussion. Calling Obama a Nazi is insane, and for example, showing up clearly armed at a political gathering as a "political statement" looks fascist. If I felt safe enough, I'd say the guy was clueless and paranoid, but that's hardly any better.

There is an endangered species of pro-choice Republicans and they keep their heads low, or basically, lie. Meanwhile, there are some religious people, many Catholics, for instance, who are clearly what you would call Democratic, except they're anti-choice, so they are lost to the party; they either don't vote at all, vote for anti-choice Republicans, or vote Independent. The politicization of what should really be a private issue has had disastrous consequences for the Democratic Party.

Anti-choice, though, is clearly part of a larger religious conviction that goes beyond abortion. The fundamentalists dominating the movement are also anti-birth control, against the HPV vaccine for girls, and for abstinence only education, and against gays being openly so or marrying. They really don't care if these programs "work" or not, they don't care if more girls and young women have sex, get pregnant and get diseases as a result of their program.

It might seem hateful of women, and definitely, some might, but it's more like they don't want the national policy to approve of sin because the God in the old Testament punishes nations for their sins. If a woman dies of a back alley abortion, it may be unfortunate to some of them, but that's the result of three or four individuals sinning and sending themselves to hell. If the nation legalizes abortion, however, then the nation is sinning, and God will probably raise the Assyrians from the dead to nuke the whole country.

That's what I consider to be the conservative-Republican view on it. It's this view that makes an individual choice like abortion into somehow a matter of major health concern. In no way am I advocating any of these views. Liberal Democrats, however, really need to be more aware that truly disastrous policies are not going to sway people who have convinced themselves that the Bible must be literally true, and they must defend that view against the wiles of Satan.

[cornermouse]

82. I left the republican party 25 years ago.

Why would I copy them now? On the abortion issue, the democratic party is going to have to pick a side. This is not an issue the rightwing repubs will let the democrats straddle. On the other hand, if they can force or push the democratic party into thinking that they can get more votes by adopting an anti-abortion plank the whole thing becomes a win-win situation for them. They're still not likely to vote for democrats but if they can manipulate the fight so that both parties oppose it they win.

By the way, if you're a professional journalist, I don't suppose you could do something about the increase in misspelling that I have seen on the big 3 networks' websites, could you? It's really irritating. Just this morning CBS had a "Reigning in College Spending" headline. While college spending may very well be the reigning concern in many homes, they actually are hoping to be "Reining in College Spending". From refdesk.com ---" rein 2. A means of restraint, check, or guidance."

[caseymoz]

84. The Democratic Party has picked its side.

If for no other reason because Republicans have chosen theirs.

But certain side issues on Reproductive Rights and Choice are open for debate in the Democratic Party, I think. Late- term abortion would be one. To express my opinion: only the very rare woman would carry ever a healthy fetus into the 24th week only to abort it then. Only if there's something terribly wrong, such as the fetus not having a brain, would there ever be a late-term abortion like that. The tragedy now is that doctors won't perform a late-term abortion even when the fetus is clearly dead and keeping it in a woman's womb does nothing but endanger the woman. Otherwise, it's purely a foot-in-the-door issue.

As long as dissent isn't over actual reproductive rights themselves, or it isn't over whether to give the fetus rights that are not only moot, but which only detract from the woman's rights and interests, I could see how there's room for dissent within the Democratic Party.

Fact is, most of the Democratic leadership is Pro-Choice even though they are quiet about it, too, so I think the issue is safe in that regard. It seems that the Anti-Choice contingent has taken the view that Democrats are evil just due to suspicion of being Pro-Choice. So they put themselves out of the party that it would otherwise be in their interests to support.

In a Parliamentary type of government, though, the strongest "Pro-Choice" Party, would at least have leverage to hold the leadership to some promises. Like, say, repealing laws that allow pharmacists to opt out of filling prescriptions for reasons of conscience.

[caseymoz]

94. Oh, about spelling.

Ah, those less common homonyms will beat down an automatic spell-checker every time. (I'm surprised programmers haven't corrected for this by now, it would seem simple with software advancements.) English spelling has never been snap, but unless one is familiar with the origin some phrases, and knows the spelling of those now less common words, there is almost no way that they will have a clue that the spell-checker just got beat.

However, most of their audience won't have a clue either. The MSM has apparently not caught on to the fact that horses are no longer our country's main form of transportation. Common familiarity with riding them or using them to draw a wagon has faded. Few people are familiar with reins, and they don't have a clear picture of what reining a horse is-- and rein is such an obscure word now. Few know it has different origins and spelling than "reign." This presents the question: why use a cliche like "Rein in spending?" if it makes the picture more obscure and not less obscure. Bad judgment and group-think is shown here.

The wrong spelling just indicates how the original meaning has become so archaic. So, then they misspell it because they have completely the wrong picture in mind. Yes, a monarch may reign, but he doesn't "reign in" his people. They neither reigned in or reigned out people. If a monarch ever "reigned in" spending I would be very shocked. If anything they made war because they wouldn't limit their spending.

So, what appears to be just a spelling mistake looks to be possible mistakes on a view about power. A president wasn't supposed to "reign." He was to be in contrast to executives who did reign.

"Reigning in spending" doesn't get my goad the way the term "get my goat" does, but I guess nobody drives oxen these days either. Let's see if I understand what people think the metaphor is: Maybe it's about a farmer who bets his goat in a card game and then loses it! But the winner is so obnoxious about it that the farmer shoots him. When it goes before the judge, he says, "Im sorry, your honor, but he got my goat!" The other farmers, knowing how attached they all were to their goats (don't ask, it's just presumed) then acquit him.

[caseymoz]

71. Very well put. Now what do we do instead? (BTW, we're called Liberals).

Vote for a third party? Forget it. Last time liberals tried that we helped put the worst president ever in the White House-- a candidate, BTW, that almost every liberal could see would become the worst President ever.

Been there, done that, and don't even ask us to do that again. I'm afraid unlike Parliamentary systems and constitutions in other countries, ours was written specifically not to have parties or factions, call it idealism or call it an error. That's why there has never been any more than two viable parties in this country, except when it was falling apart in 1860. That's the fundamental reality of our political structure.

Now one party or another might disintegrate, and be replaced by a new one, but we're not going to see a winning third party.

Elections alone aren't going to correct this. I'm afraid the only measures from here are more radical and risky. Like general strikes. Like mass marches, which are bit easier now (in a perverse way) since so many of us are unemployed right now. Are you at the point where you suggest those? The other side is already calling us Nazis. Could you imagine how ape-shit they would get if that began to happen?

And we're calling ourselves "progressives" now because, specifically, George H. W. Bush made "liberal" into an insult, and brought the Cold War home with the phrase "a card carrying member of the ACLU." While Rush Limbaugh further to the Right was heaping insults on liberalism three hours daily. (Never mind that Obama is, if anything, a moderate, but they are treating him as a "liberal Nazi," which makes as much sense as a "bird-cat.")

I'm not suggesting anything one way or another or trying to foment anything. I'm just telling people here what the dilemma is. I prefer that it all be done at the voting box and through grievances brought to Congress and the Courts. I am now convinced that is not going to happen.

[cornermouse]

72. I'm going to reluctantly disagree.

I am to the point where I think voting third party may very well be the only real option we have left.

[caseymoz]

75. It wan't only the Green Party in 2000 that sank their interests with a 3rd party.

Just how much time did we lose in tackling Global Warming due to Bush's victory in 2000. I guess the Green Party really showed the Democrats. Remember the Dixiecrats? H. Ross Perot's party and how it sank GHWB?

You are not going to change the success of 3rd parties through any change in political culture, because it's our Constitution, not our political culture, that discourages more than two political parties. I might not be able to absolutely prove to you that a third party is a losing strategy, but I could make a strong argument. First, the weakest but notable argument: our Constitution doesn't mention parties, doesn't given them any official acknowledgment. The methods of electing the President and Congress suggests that it is all to be done without parties, and indeed, the first Congress and President were elected just that way, and the electors unanimously chose George Washington.

So, what conclusions can we draw about how many parties a government constituted to discourage parties will support? Luckily, that should be somewhat easy to find out, since we have rather a large sample from which to draw conclusions about this. We don't have just our Federal Government running over the last more than 220 years to look at. We have an absolute large experiment with fifty-one different governments running the same system for the last 50 years, (and progressively smaller samples before that.)

If a Third Party is going to start, it is going to start with the States and work up, not start nationally and work down, as in "Astroturfing" or "Teabagging." The State governments are almost all modeled on the structure of our constitution and our government. How many successful, operating, Third Parties have there been in those States?

By successful, I mean, that have captured any majority at all in those states, put of Governor in, and have been a continuing force. The fact is, I don't know. I'm looking for those facts. This is information to find that will suggest just how successful the effort will be.

My SWAG is-- there haven't been any, except in time of an extreme crisis like the Great Depression or a Civil War. That indicates just how successfully the Constitution has discouraged political parties. (Though it didn't get to the root of the problem the Founders actually feared: political factions, with or without parties).

Considering our federal government only, third parties have never fared well. Our two party system is hardly a 20th century defect. We have always had a "two party system." Either it has been Democratic/Republican, Democratic/Whig, Democratic/Federalist, or for a time between the 1820s and 1850s, Democratic and everyone else.

The best a third party has ever done in a presidential election is 27.5 percent of the vote, by the Progressive Party in 1912, and they had the strongest, most-qualified candidate imaginable: Teddy Roosevelt, who also received a 3rd party record 88 electoral votes. The second most for electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968, who received 46 electoral votes, but no where near second in popular percentage.

Please note that in other countries, Parties are given a strong official status, and they are central in how the legislature is shaped and the Executive Branch is then formed. Parties are an official conduit between putting public opinion into the government.

For example, in say a Parliamentary government, like Israel, the Parties are stronger, more disciplined institutions, and are recognized Constitutionally. There may be many parties. When the elections are held, the seats in Parliament are usually allotted depending on the proportion of the votes. If no one party has a greater than 50 percent majority, and that frequently happens, the major parties then begin negotiations with the smaller parties to try to form a coalition that has more than fifty percent of the seats. During these negotiations, the smaller parties have a lot more clout than any of the factions in our parties do. Once a coalition has greater than 50 percent, the administration is then formed with that coalition.

If the promises aren't kept, the smaller parties then have the right, at least periodically, to pull out and deprive the coalition of the majority. Then, new elections have to be held.

Now that's a system that gives more power to smaller factions, which, in other countries, are usually parties themselves. They could frequently trip a large party completely out of power.

One other good result of this: it does give more choices to a faction that otherwise has limited goals. Alliances tend to be very fluid and changeable. A larger party frequently has to give into a smaller party demand, or the small party can end the government. Whereas, with ours, the alliances tend to be set for generations. I mean in the US, the last big switch of a faction from one party to the other was the South, the White part of it, becoming Republican. That was 35 years ago. In other national governments, factional coalitions change all the time. It is hardly a perfect system, though, but I use it just to contrast how the difference encourages parties on the one hand and discourages them on the other.

Despite the fact that I think Third Parties are a bad idea, there is an exception that has occurred in the US. That is when one of the two main parties goes extinct, as happened with the Whigs.

That may be happening. I thought it would with Republicans, since they have a shrinking demographic. Now I'm not entirely sure-- or not sure it's happening quick enough. Any upstart party has to bring in a previously inactive and alienated part of the constituency as its most active members, with the remnants of the previous party joining them.

And it will take a crisis.

But do you still think it's a good idea to go ahead with a third party?

[mod mom]

77. Sorry to have missed recommending this. Ain't it the truth. "Parties are loyal to their own power"

Some how I thought an Af Am president would break this ugly cycle, just as the Congressional Black Caucus fought power in the past (thinking especially of their fight for the truth about election results).

[Oak2004]

80. I see it more as, there's a movement, and these are it's growing pains

I have seen for some time that the progressive movement has been too closely bound to the Democratic Party. It's been too eager to look for national Democratic figures to follow, and too unwilling to take bottom-up initiative and/or grow it's own movement leaders independent of the Democratic Party.

But I see that because I've been involved in politics for longer than much of the "netroots" have been wandering this earth. I know that to have leverage, you need distance from the fulcrum. I can see when establishment politicians happily exploit naive advocacy groups. I've seen it all before. But a lot of others in the movement haven't, and there is no way to teach what I and I'm sure others know short of hard lessons. If and when we tried to explain any of this, we'd have been dismissed as "impractical" and "too idealistic", or even "too radical" and "trying to sabotage our efforts". But now it's clear that being bound up too closely to the Democratic Party isn't "pragmatic", it's a recipe for defeat.

Not much has been lost in this lesson, at least not if the lesson is taken to heart. However inadequate the current batch of Democrats may be, they are (marginally) better than a Republican controlled congress and White House. We know we can organize and we have learned how to win elections, if not which candidates to back. We can take what we know and ratchet up the pressure, this time not on Republicans, but on Democrats who deserve a primary opponent. As far as I'm concerned Jane Hamsher and the Firedoglake crowd are doing the single most valuable work right now, when it comes to holding Democrats' feet to the fire, and I'm hoping there will be more efforts along these lines as the lessons learned sink in.

[Le Taz Hot]

85. I can kick

but I'm too late to recommend. This could not have stated the consternation and dilemma of the Progressives more accurately. The Democratic Party will continue to say a big "fuck you" to the Progressives at their own peril.

[blindpig]

87. So when does the 'peril' begin?

We hear this from 'progressives' over and over, yet no one votes with their feet.

Third parties, at this stage of the game, are about useless. Rather a mass working class movement must be built, then perhaps we might consider electoral politics, if it suits our purpose. As it is now that game is hopelessly rigged.

[Umbral]

86. This is nothing new, but you'd think liberals would get tired of getting played. nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

90. Thom just said something on his show that fits into this.....

Political parties are built for ONE thing. To win elections.

[BOG PERSON]

92. I really hate the word "progressive,"

it's a word that's vague to the point of being meaningless. Progress is a matter of perspective. I wonder what brought about the rebranding of American liberalism as "progressivism."