After Democratic victories, liberals become the Republicans' best friends

[johan helge]

It happened with Jimmy Carter in 1980, Al Gore in 2000, and seems to be happening with Barack Obama in 2012:

1 Liberals are not satisfied with them.

2 Liberals don't work for them or contribute to them, or perhaps don't even vote for them.


No. 1 is ok. But no. 2 is the problem. No. 2 seems to be especially strong after Democratic victories (in 1976, 1992 & 1994, and 2008).


Why no. 2 is a problem:

a) It makes it easier for the Republicans to win, and they ARE 1000 times worse.

b) The main effect of no. 2 is to make Democrats less, not more, liberal: The main reason Carter, Gore and Obama were/are not more liberal in office, is not that they didn't/don't want to be more liberal, but that they were/are not strong enough (because the Congress and/or the voters are too conservative). Carter and Gore have later become liberal heroes, and as far as I remember, Obama was one of the most liberal Senators. So no. 2, which makes them weaker, makes it more difficult for them to be liberal. (The same applies for the Republicans - when they became stronger, under Bush, they dared to become more conservative.)

[Political Heretic]

1. I really don't care.

First of all, I don't agree that there is a "1000 times worse" spectrum between Republicans and Democrats in national politics. I think that spectrum of difference is far more narrow.

What's more, in at least modern times both parties treat working class Americans as second class citizens. Regardless of the "degree" to which they do this, the fact that it is a reality at all is a problem.

Right now you and many (probably most) others seem to assume that we must simply accept a system in which the needs of poor and working class individuals and families are always prioritized beneath the wants and whims of the financial elite. This is the standard trickle-down theory, and there have been just as many democrats espousing it in modern days as there were Reagan conservatives in times past.

And Trickle-down theory goes beyond just economics to the whole of social policy. The basically unquestioned assumption is that the whims of the financial elite must be catered to and prioritized. Republicans believe this is true because the poor get what they deserve, and no investment should ever be made in the working class. Democrats believe this is true because its just how the system works and the system should never, ever be questioned - thus in order to even be able to throw a few crumbs from the table of the masters, the wants and whims of this nations first class citizens must be catered to.

That's the society we live in: two thirds of America continues to prop up a government that does not represent them, treats them like second class citizens, and demands that they be content to lick off the ground whatever crumbs of policy fall from the table of the glutinous feast being enjoyed by a first class minority.

Now that's just the way it is.

The question is, which is better - to continue to prop up this system in institutionalized inequality forever, by constantly supporting the same status quo when neither party is willing to prioritize the needs of the working class, or treat the majority of people in this country like first class citizens? The argument being that quite literally nothing else is possible. There is not hope. No possibility for anything better than the system we have right now, and thus all we can do is hope for small, marginal incremental temporary benefits given one year then lost the next. Thus our only choice is to support the lesser of two evils in a dismally failed, utterly unjust system of exploitation.

OR,

We can stop.

I don't know what happens if we stop, if we say "enough." But I have a feeling we'd be in for a season of darkness before any sunlight. It is true, that if there was revolt within the ranks to the broad spectrum of people that refer to themselves as being in some way "on the left" the possibility exists that for a time Republicans could use that as an opportunity to regain power.

But I want to remind you of a little truth - in this maintained political status quo, Republicans will already regain power at some point, as people vasilate back and forth between the "lesser of who cares." People shouldn't be thinking about what happens in the first year of upheaval when republicans use the turmoil as a chance to grab some power. People should be thinking about what happens when Republican once again fail at leading - as they always, inevitably do - only this time, there is something different ready to stand in opposition to it.

Even if things don't turn out like that wishful scenario, one reality remains: endlessly perpetuating this broken system under the argument that "at least one side is better than the other" is a hopeless, dreary, dismally grey world to live in where we accept being treated like second class citizens, accept trickle-down (read: piss on) economic and social theory, where we except that our "representative government" tells us - you wait until we've served your "betters" and then, if there's any scrape we manage to benevolently get in bargaining we will throw them to you.

I'd rather fight that ridiculous failed system and risk losing than simply succumb to its dismal status quo.

[johan helge]

2. Perhaps

it feels good to withdraw support from Democratic candidates one is dissatisfied with. But that reaction makes Republicans smile. In the end, I think the best feeling comes from being their real enemy, i.e. trying to make them lose elections.

And it IS important. Health care reform, imperfect as it is, will still save many lives. If Gore had won, the Iraq war would not have happened.

[pinto]

3. I am poor.

I receive a Social Security Disability benefit.

I have health care coverage via Medicare and Medicaid.

I have a housing subsidy via HUD.

I have AIDS.

While I would not be homeless, I have family, without these incremental benefits gained over time by Democratic Congresses and Democratic Administrations, I would be dead.

Literally.

I do not see these benefits as crumbs that fall from the table of the glutinous feast being enjoyed by a first class minority.

I do not see myself as a second class citizen. Far from it. Nor have I felt second class in any way, shape or form. I paid into these programs over the course of my working career.

I see myself, now, in a position to work to help expand existing benefits and mutual, social support systems for all of us.

I don't want to burn down the house I live in, I want to add some more rooms.

[johan helge]

4. As far as I remember, in 2000,

wealthy liberals (or people?) had a stronger tendency to vote Nader than poor liberals. One reason for this, I think, is that it is more important for poor people to stop the Republicans than for wealthy people.

[Hannah Bell]

5. Your thoughts would be more convincing if the legislative record were more clear-cut.

But it's not.

Clinton, for example, gave us welfare "reform," & the Volker policies that decimated the poorest were initiated under Carter.

Nor do Dems often seem to decisively reverse the faulty economic policies of their Republican predecessors.

[johan helge]

7. The Democrats are far from perfect.

But if they had been stronger, they would have been more liberal, just as the Republicans became more conservative under Bush, when they became stronger.

The most important thing is the median voter on the left-right scale (among those who vote Democratic or Republican). Simply put, the party that wins him, wins the election. And if that voter moves rightwards, so must the Democrats, to win. And that median voter will move rightwards, if liberals don't vote Democratic.

[Hannah Bell]

10. Except that median voter has moved to the left, not the right. It's why Obama won on

a platform of "change".

[johan helge]

12. Yes, and e.g. Obama's victory

seems to make liberals change a little focus - from "beating the Repubs" to "make the Democrats more liberal". And they think that the way to make the Democrats more liberal, is to "abandon ship" in protest etc. But helping the Democrats to beat the Repubs even more, is the best or perhaps the only way to make the Democrats more liberal.

[Hannah Bell]

22. so we were told at midterms & presidentials. now we have to keep "beating them more,"

though we control congress & the presidency.

seems like a siphyian task.

seems bush was able to do his evil deeds even when the pubs lost seats.

sorry, i don't buy it.

if i'd seen signs the admin was fighting hard for anything but bankster bailouts, you'd be more convincing.

[johan helge]

25. Yes, it is a

sisyphean task.

And it's not about getting everything we want - we can't - but about avoiding the worst.

I can only offer you blood, sweat and tears!

The Congress is more progressive now than in a very long time, perhaps more than it has ever been. That's why health reform finally happened. Still, it's not really progressive, with Senators like Lieberman with the power to damage health reform. And the only way to deal with this, is to win even more elections.

[Hannah Bell]

26. if i'm going to undertake sisyphean tasks, i'd just as soon undertake

the task of pressuring the government to enact what people want, not elect more people who won't do it.

[johan helge]

29. It's not black and white, but grades of good/bad

The Dems do 1000 times more for people than the Repubs.

And would do even more, had they been stronger.

But many liberals think making them weaker can do the trick, and that way help the Repubs.

[Hannah Bell]

35. i disagree. i think the dems have been living on the legacy of fdr

& kennedy/johnson for the last 30 years, & had better figure out what kind of animal they are pretty quick.

[johan helge]

37. Yes, I think the Dems

could be more progressive without losing elections, perhaps it would even win them votes.

But my point is what liberals should do, given that the Dems (and the Repubs) are how they are.

And my answer is that the best or only way to make the Dems more progressive, is to move the median voter (among those who vote D or R) leftwards. And that is done by voting D, and trying to make others vote D.

[Fumesucker]

74. Funny you should mention blood, sweat and tears..

The British people only had to undergo blood sweat and tears for about six years, they got National Health very shortly after WWII was over.

If we have anything approaching the British NHS in six years I'll be utterly gobsmacked.

You are basically talking blood, sweat and tears from now until eternity.

[johan helge]

80. Yes, I am

The fight against the right is an everlasting struggle.

And it's not about getting everything we want - we can't - but about avoiding the worst.

I just hope that the US will, over time, become more like Europe, where the right is much weaker (and therefore much less conservative) than in the US.

[KakistocracyHater]

118. no it isn't, you're wrong. The fact that ONE MAN could 'stop' the Health Care

reform proves it isn't a very progressive Congress. Putting in a Public Health Option onto every piece of legislation would prove it to be a very Progressive Congress. A single-mindedness for the betterment of the Middle Class is what is required because creating jobs that pay middle class wages & benefits creates the middle class out of the working poor. Payoffs to banksters doesn't spell Progressive.

[johan helge]

130. I agree,

"it isn't a very progressive Congress". But it may still be the most progressive Congress the US has ever had. The big example is health reform.

[pinto]

9. It seems our most common blunder, economic reform / restructuring.

(caveat) I'm no economist, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Clinton's Administration probably benefited economically from the dot com boom, in large part. That seems clear to me. Yet I'm unclear on the Volker policies from Carter's Administration. Share your take on them?

[Hannah Bell]

11. Carter appointed Volker.

[pinto]

14. Yeah, I know that. I meant your take on the policies.

Thanks.

[Hannah Bell]

21. i'm not sure what you mean by my take. Volker started tightening rates under carter.

[pinto]

31. Ah, I got it. He tightened interest rates to slow inflation that was running at ~ 13% at one point,

yet the policy contributed to the recession during Carter's Administration.

I'm not well versed in economic policy, I was just looking for some info. Thanks.

[Hannah Bell]

34. the policy caused the 1980-82 recession, which was devasting on many,

many levels. & particularly on the poor & barely hanging on.

It was the first time in my life i began to see lots of homeless in the US, & it wasn't because Reagan shut down insane asylums, as the myth has it.

[HughMoran]

91. I hate liberals!!!!

Why don't you tell everybody how you really feel?

[johan helge]

131. Do you think I hate liberals?

But I'm a liberal myself. But I remember in 2000, I could stand to see Bush on TV, but not Nader, that was too much. Gore was desperately trying to stop this maniac, and Nader still made it more difficult for him, even though Nader too knew what Bush stood for. My feelings for Nader and his voters are not fit to print!

[Political Heretic]

8. I want you to know that I really appreciate what you wrote. I too am poor.

Been through bankruptcy. Unemployed. Medicaid. Lost my housing, and thankfully - unlike many people - have family that let's me sleep on their floor.

Of course I've had privileges too, many of them. But when I write whatever I write, I'm not doing it from some ivory tower. I don't say that to minimize your perspective - far from it. I think it gives both of us a lot of room to discuss these very complex matters.

I wish I wouldn't have read this a 2:44am my time. I want to respond so much, but I'm not sure I'll be able to now. I think I may slip outside to think under the stars and decide of maybe I could say a few words tonight before going to bed.

Again - I want to thank you for your perspective, I really respect it. I'm going to try to explain how I why I see it a little different, but I think it should make for good discussion.

[pinto]

13. Thank you. And likewise here. Appreciate your perspective.

(aside) I like to bounce off broad picture points of view with a day to day reality check of sorts. Spent a lot of time in Public Health staff meetings, brain-storming how to allocate funding to real world results. We often took turns at stating one position or the other, as a process. Always amicable and always passionate, and it seemed to work in our realm.

[Political Heretic]

36. Don't think I can sleep without sharing some thoughts...

Your story is not dissimilar to my father's. It's the story of a reality - that some people get excellent and appropriate assistance from their society of which they are a part, relative to the specifics of their situation.

My father is a veteran. He suffered from undiagnosed PTSD for most of his life following combat service in Vietnam. My father went through bankruptcy, lose his home and ended up being forced to move in with my mom's mom. That was supposed to be short term. But then my father was assaulted by one substantial health crisis after another. Stroke. Bells Palsy. Skin Cancer. Diabetes.

His health deteriorated further and further, and it became impossible for him to work. Eventually, there was a crisis with my mom's mom. I won't go into details, but she was mentally unstable, and it became literally unsafe for my father to remain there. He was forced onto the street, with just some belongings and a van, with enough money for one or two nights in a motel.

To shorten this story up, I and friends worked to connect my father with local social services, to get emergency assistance. Eventually representatives from the VA made my father aware of resources available to him. Two years later, he was approved for permanent total disability through the VA due to a now-diagnosed PTSD and health complications related to trauma. Today my father, who cannot work on his owns, receives enough income through government assistance to have his needs met and met comfortably - with even enough resources to enjoy some creature comforts during his remaining years.

That's the story of the system working for someone. And thank god for that.

But now let me talk to you from my perspective as a young(ish) social worker. Though currently unemployed and looking for work, I've had the privilege of working for community agencies proving assistance to low income individuals and families. Many of our clients were homeless, others were on the brink of being homeless. Still others had just taken the plunge from that bottom wrung of so-called "middle class" into poverty, by losing that last paycheck. Many came with untreated mental illness, nearly all came in deep emotional crisis.

My perspective is one of watching needs go unmet day after day after day after day. For every person out there who has sufficiently benefited from our societies social welfare programs when they rightfully needed them, there is at least one other person who has not been so lucky. Truth be told, the ratio is higher than one to one, but its 3:37am, and I don't have access to all of my saved social research on stagnation in poverty and the gap between services and need. You can take my word for it, OR we can just keep taking about even a one to one ratio, which in my opinion is still tragically high.

Here's some other realities from my perspective as a macro social worker, i.e. one choosing a focus on social inequality and analysis of public policy through the lens of social work - specifically through the lens of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics:

-- Poverty, while declining during the era of the War on Poverty (imperfect though the "war" may have been) has since risen sharply, then stagnated at this tragically high level, with modest dips or increases depending on year. A greater percentage of people live in relative poverty (relative meaning one's ability to fully participate in the society in which one exists) than do in the next top twenty industrialized nations in the world.

-- Wages for non-supervisory workers, the working class, have either stagnated or declined over the last 30 years, depending on which economic sub-strata you examine (persons at the poverty line, persons at 200% of poverty line, persons at 400% of poverty line, etc.)

-- Income inequality, the measure of the gap between a societies highest income earners and its lowest income earners, used to be moderately narrow. In my lifetime it has exponentially widened and shows no signs of stopping. The rich are literally getting richer while the poor are literally getting poorer. That's not just a cliche - its a statistical reality.

-- Wealth inequality measurements - not just income by total wealth and assets - are even more off the charts, as a substantial number of the "mid" middle class are asset poor, and thus one paycheck away from ruin.

-- Once upon a time wages were closely coupled with productivity, and when productivity rose wages also rose. After Reagan, wages and productivity decoupled, productivity measurements exploded while wages for workers (as I described above) stagnated or declined.

-- Among the top 20 peer industrialized nations in the world, we currently rank worst in multiple categories, that for me I consider to be moral imperatives:

Income Inequality: U.S. First (meaning worst)
Overall Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Child Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Elderly Poverty Rate: U.S. Highest
Infant Mortality Rate: U.S. First (meaning worst)
Leisure Time: U.S. Last (meaning worst)
Maternity Leave: U.S. Last (meaning worst)

http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/search?q=Blind+Eyes&submit=Search">Source

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig.html">Source for many of the previous statements[br />
People coming into my office for assistance back when I was employed were regularly turned away. People left hungry. People left homeless. People left without the access to medicine or clothing that they needed. People left without access to mental health services because there was simply no room for new clients any places that could take individuals without ability to pay if they were not in immediate life danger.

What Does all of this Lead me to Conclude
It leads me to conclude that the fact that some people manage to be well treated by our social safety net, it is insufficient. And its not insufficient because our political-economic system is simply doings its best and there's just not enough to go around. It's insufficient because our political-economic system priorities other needs ahead of social investment.

That's what social "welfare" really is by the way - social investment. It's not a handout. It's in everyone's long term best interests that there are fewer people on the streets, and fewer people in abject poverty and fewer people without sufficient access to mental and physical health services. A healthy, secure, stable workforce is key to long term economic sustainability.

Some people are getting what they need from our social safety net. But not enough people are, and fewer people are getting what they need now than in times past. Lest we forget the elimination of true "welfare" and its replacement with TANF. Lest we ignore cuts in a majority of states to social services. Lest we ignore all the of the facts I detailed above.

We have a society that does still have some measure of social investment programs. But those programs are not getting stronger when you look at a multi-decade analysis. They are getting weaker. And they are consistently under assault by the right, and bargained away in compromise by the left.

Even if there are some benefits that work for some people in our society today, its pretty hard to dispute that our political system prioritizes the wants and whims of the financial elite first, and the needs of poor and working class individuals and families second. The benefits that exist reflect that prioritization. Many of our social investment programs came from a time in our national history where it could be argued that the prioritization of the wants of the financial elite was not as clear-cut, and that the needs of the poor and working class garnered greater moral concern. But its hard to argue that policy over the last thirty years has reflected that.

Again, I don't know of too many people who say "you are wrong, our government makes poor people its first focus when making policy or passing legislation, demanding that the wants of the investor class, billionaires and multi-billion dollar corporations either be a secondary priority or equal priority with the needs of ordinary Americans."

I don't know too many who would say that with a straight face. What people do say - and this is an understandable perspective - is that the dream of a society that prioritizes the needs of marginalized populations without political influence or monetary bargaining power ahead of the demands of those with the power to stop any good policy from every happening is a pipe dream - a utopia that does not exist.

I'm not dismissive of that argument. I respect if, even if I do not fully agree with it.

But let's start by agreeing on the reality that our political-economic system does not prioritize the needs of poor and working class individuals and families ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite.

Since that is true, then at least to some extent that sets up two different "classes" of people. The first class is the one that gets its wants considered first, and considered more carefully and with more weight. The second class is the one that gets its needs looked at secondarily, in deference to the interests of that first class.

The dangers of complacency
Forgive me for including sub-headings. I know that can look silly, but this is also quite long so I thought it might be visually helpful. And let me just say, I'm fully aware that you might not be inclined to read all of this. And I'm fearful that others reading this will think its extremely pretentious of me, or think I just like the sound of my own voice or something.

All I can tell you is that what you wrote just set off and explosion of thoughts and feelings in my mind, such that I felt like I just had to write about it - needed to get it off my chest. Please don't think that I think more of myself than I do just because I've written so much. Sheer tonnage of all the things I don't know, all the confusion I have, all the ignorance and shortsightedness I posses could stop a truck in its tracks. Thanks for your understanding.

Back to point, here's my fear: just because an individual might be well taken care of the system does not mean he or she serves as a representative example of how the system functions. You are well taken care of. My father was well taken care of. And then there are the hundreds of people who went away from my office not well taken care of.

You wrote that you don't want to burn down the house that you live in, you want to make more rooms. But my fear is that this sentiment can easily get twisted into a fear of losing what one has so great that it makes them unwilling to accept the gross failure of our system. I worry that it can become something like "I'm taken care of, so I don't want to risk any change, regardless of how inequitable the system may be for countless others."

I often worry about the people who have a little, even more than I worry about the people that have a lot. Because I fear that they might be more susceptible to becoming the people most passionately defending the status quo.

But then there's the second part of your statement - the desire to make "more rooms" as you put it. I will tell you that this is exactly how I felt and what I said for many years. But one thing changed that for me. It was when I was in graduate school (remember I told you I've had some privileges) getting my MSW studying policy and the history of social welfare in the United States.

People have been talking about making "more rooms" in this home for most of my lifetime. And during that time what has happened? We haven't made more rooms - we've made less.

Something about the idea of using Democrats to make more rooms in this system does not seem to be working. Instead what seems to happen is republicans come to power and put our country into a steep decline, then democrats take over and level it out. They don't undo all the damage that has been done, they don't take steps to put social policy back on an incline. They simply pull us out the the nose dive and establish a new "flatline." Then repbulicans come back into power and put us into a new nose dive, driving the country even lower. And Democrats come back into power and they level out and establish a new "flatline."

That's what leads me to conclude that the system is broken, and both parties are contributing to our social decline. I believe the system "broke" in the mid 1970s, when corporations decided that the best way to handle government was to buy it out. The financial elite have spent the last thirty years essentially buying out the heart of both the national Republican part and national Democratic Party. Both parties are not the same. But they are both failing the American people. Failing.

I feel that we keep perpetuating that failure because we fear the chaos that might ensure if we started to take a real stand. There might be Republicans elected in the short run, I really don't know. But the fear of that reality has stifled any serious talk of standing up for a system in which the needs of ordinary Americans are placed first, with the interests of the financial elite mandated to be met only when they are in service to the interests of ordinary Americans.

If you're still with me (and I really understand if you aren't,) then one last thought:
When I talk about rejecting this national political system, its not because I am naive enough to believe that a glorious peoples revolution is just around the corner. It's not that I think that we're on the verge of a massive, nation-wide movement to end this corporatocacy and reinstate a truly representative democracy. I'm not necessarily optimistic about that.

What I want though, is for people to stop making excuses for this failed national system, and both the parties that comprise it. Yes, I know this is Democratic Underground and I realy appreciate that so far I still get to post here. I used to be a Democrat when I first started reading here so long ago, but I'm not anymore. And yet I still care about the people - many good, amazing people who identify as Democrats. I feel that the system has failed, but there are countless ordinary Americans identifying as Democrats who are full of passionate commitment to social and economic justice. That's why I still want to participate in this community.

What I want is for people to accept that this system has failed, and put their hope and efforts into other places besides Washington politics and party politics. Maybe for some that will mean speaking out and trying to organize real movements. That's wonderful. But in other cases I think it just means refocusing from the national stage to the community stage.

In cities and municipalities, in counties and states - this is where real battles are being fought and won - yes won! - but those who put the needs of poor and working class individuals and families first. National politics is not going to save us, especially not in this system which has failed. But grassroots efforts absolutely make a difference. My best friend hasn't paid an once of attention to the last six months of health care wrangling in Washington. But as program coordinator for the Community Housing Alliance of Cincinnati, she has busted her ass to get people into safe housing and off the streets, to organize and lobby city hall and state government to change polices to put the needs of the poor first - and she's won tangible victories that have translated into substantive change for real people, and changed policy in Cincinnati.

Progressive have desired living wage law at the federal level for ages, but also dismiss that desire as nothing but a pipe dream - something that will never happen in that failed system. And yet today over one hundred and twenty cities and municipalities have passed living wage laws all over this country, with more votes on the horizon. And a lot of people who can't do anything of impact the failed system in Washington have pour time and energy into these efforts and seen victory.

Washington corporatism and its influence that has poisoned both parties will not get us where we need to be. It has killed the national political system. It has failed ordinary Americans and appears to beyond hope of saving from the inside. I think we should consider focusing on our own communities, our own neighborhoods and schools, our own counties and our own states - places where we can walk up to elective officials and look them right in the eye - because I believe that grassroots level is where change happens. And I believe if there is ever to be any hope of saving our failed national poltical system, it won't come from the top-down, or by just reelecting the same Democrats over and over. I believe it will come from the bottom up, as we pour our energy into our communities and watch the fruits of our labor grow and expand.

Thanks for listening. I apologize for the length. Please understand (though I guess this is probably too much information) that I am under the influence of a very powerful (by prescription) pain killer, as I have a severe back condition. It makes it difficult to organize my thoughts, or edit effectively. But I wanted so much to write about all these things you made me think about before I didn't feel the "passion" anymore.

My best to you!
PH

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. You said something really important

Americans act as if the presidential election is the only important one, because that's the one that the media cover.

But in fact, your state and municipal and school board and utility board elections have a far greater effect on your everyday life than any federal actions. Yet voting numbers and political involvement, which hover only around 50% for presidential elections, may drop far below that for state and municipal elections.

One person's vote carries far more weight locally than nationally, not only because of the lower numbers but because there's no Electoral College to mess things up.

Whenever someone tells me that vouchers are the only hope for American education, I remind them that schools in this country are locally controlled and that few people vote in school board elections. College towns almost always have excellent schools, even if the majority of the town is not so well educated. Why? The college faculty, most of whom have middle-middle class incomes want their children to have good educations, but they cannot afford to send their children to private schools. Instead, they pester the school board to death (typically, no one else bothers) and get results.

[phasma ex machina]

93. +1

[uponit7771]

6. Fact not in dispute: Bush was 1000 times worse for a generation of Americans

[cornermouse]

15. + 1.

[MilesColtrane]

56. "I don't know what happens if we stop" (supporting Democrats)

See: 2000 Presidential Election and the ensuing 8 years

[johan helge]

82. Well said (nt)

[Vidar]

81. Very well said.

[HughMoran]

90. You know something, I don't care either

:hi:

[JVS]

95. +1

[uponit7771]

16. Happened after passing civil rights act also, Dems have a poor way of communicating though & selling

...their ideas longterm

[johan helge]

18. Perhaps

- but it seems like the Republicans don't have this problem to the same extent. I don't know why. Perhaps it's because the Democrats for a long time have been the weakest party, they have the most frustrated supporters.

[Hannah Bell]

23. or maybe it's because they don't want to. because when people keep (not) doing the same obvious

thing over & over, that's the default assumption.

if joe schmoe in the street can recognize the need to sell the public, the leadership & their media people can.

they don't want to. they're selling something else.

[johan helge]

27. I don't understand? (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

28. "democrats have a poor way of communicating" - uh, not for 30 years

straight, they don't.

[johan helge]

30. I don't think liberals abandon Democrats

because the Democrats don't communicate well enough (but better communication would of course help). Perhaps it's because liberals are more frustrated than conservatives.

[rpannier]

17. I disagree with your inclusion of Carter

He lost because the public viewed him as being unable to deal with crisis effectively.

1. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan was met with the boycott of the Olympic Games in the Soviet Union
2. The hostage crisis in Iran just dragged on and he seemed unable to do anything
3. The botched attempt at rescue made the situation look even worse
4. His speech on the energy crisis

In addition:

1. His handling of the White House staff dispute over the use of the tennis courts (which became fodder for a lot of jokes)
2. The reaction of Ted Kennedy after Carter won the Democratic nomination did him no great service

Carter lost, not because he was abandoned by liberals. He got creamed in the electoral vote because people felt they could do better than Carter.
As 1980 dragged on closer to election day, people had grown tired of his presidency

[johan helge]

19. Yes,

Carter would probably have lost, even if he had not been abandoned by liberals. My point was just that he was abandoned by liberals, the same way Gore was and Obama probably will be.

[rpannier]

20. OK

Understood
Thanks for the input
Also a thanks for not taking offense

Some people here get very upset if you take a differing position to their OP

Thanks Again

[johan helge]

24. And thanks

for interesting input about the 1980 election!

[sendero]

32. 1000 times worse?

Maybe in some distant past. Maybe comparing a mythical Democrat against the DictatorTot.

As of right now, barely worse. We're still in the same stupid pointless neverending wars, we still have a government of big business, by big business and for big business.

I'll get excited when Obama starts acting like a Democrat.

[johan helge]

Well,

you can compare Gore/Kerry with Bush jr. (Iraq war or not), or Obama with McCain (health reform or not, and the reform would have been much better, if not for Lieberman etc.).

But the point isn't really whether the difference is big or not. It's that there is a difference, and that the best liberals can do, is to vote D and support the D candidates. That makes it more difficult for the R to win elections, and it makes the D and the R less conservative.

[asdjrocky]

33. Sorry.

I vote for people to represent my interests. Fear is not a motive for me to vote any more.

[johan helge]

39. If you vote D, fine.

If you vote Green or something, you make Karl Rove smile.

[asdjrocky]

41. Frankly, like I said, I don't play that fear based shit.

Not anymore. You can go ahead and play that game if you like.

[johan helge]

44. What do you mean, "fear"?

If facts (what the effects of not voting D really are) are "fear", they don't become less true by being called "fear".

[asdjrocky]

45. The Dems do the same thing as the pugs.

I will not vote for someone with a D after their name just because of the D, because I'm afraid of the R. I live in a district that has the co-chair of the blue dog coalition. How much do you think this guy represents my interests?

Be a sucker if you want, I'm done.

[johan helge]

46. I see, a Blue Dog!

Blue Dogs are horrible, but still much better than Repubs. If the Blue Dog senators had lost their elections, there would have been no health reform, and 30 million less people would have got insurance.

[asdjrocky]

48. No.

He's no different than a pug would be in his seat. I've been paying attention for more than thirty years. You can talk all you want but I know what my eyes and ears are telling me.

The system is broken and it was broken by money and all the voting in the world won't change a thing until we address the money. Period.

[johan helge]

52. Ok,

if there is NO difference between him and his R opponent, it doesn't matter, except perhaps symbolically, who wins the election.

But, of course, there are always some differences, however small. Then those differences are the best liberals can get in that election, and they should vote for the Blue Dog.

Should liberals oppose the nomination of the Blue Dog? Yes, if some other candidate can beat the Repub.

This also gives one reason for voting for the Blue Dog against a Repub: If the Blue Dog wins big, a D victory seems more probable also the next time. Then the argument "only the Blue Dog can beat the Repub in the next election" will not be so strong.

[Political Heretic]

50. Bringing 30 million people into a failed system is not a victory.

Its not about 30 million people getting insurance.

It's about bringing 30 million people into a quality health care system that prioritizes health and wellness services ahead of multi-billion dollar profits.

It's about bringing 30 million people into a system that's affordable now, and stays affordable in the future - something the senate bill far from guarantees. In fact CBO projects a ridiculous rise in costs to consumer.... just not as much as they are expected to rise now. That's what its come down to. Our major victory is that insurance reform will cause health care costs to consumes to skyrocket....less.

See, better is not always "good enough." Sometimes it is. But in this case, all this insurance reform does is lock 30 million new customers into an industry that is still wildly de-regulated, without clear, clean, simple cost containment absolutes or clear cut, loophole free consumer protections.

It brings 30 million new people into a failed system. That's not a victory. What's worse is that it kills all political will for further health reform anytime in the forseeable future. Congress and administrations don't have the stomach to tackle health care more than once a decade; sometimes once a generation, history tells us.

And what's even worse than that - is that this bill does not even serve as a foundation. If we were to come back to health care in the near future, much of what is in this Senate version of the bill would have to be undone to make progress. That's not a foundation. That's backwards.

There's still hope that conference will improve the bill. But my hope on that is slim, very slim.

[johan helge]

51. I think Krugman is right

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html):

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

(..)

The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically.

(..)

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

(..)

Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.


Me, not Krugman:

Compare the society now and 50 years ago. There is a big difference. But how has this big change happened? Gradually, not in one big step. That's how societies usually change.

[Greyhound]

96. Which Krugman, the liberal economist that ran the numbers while this

aberration was being created and told his readers that it was a monstrosity that will do little to help people but that is a trillion dollar giveaway to the insurance industry, or the post-deal Democratic millionaire that has bowed to the inevitable and needs to keep those invitations coming?

[johan helge]

99. Do you really believe

that Krugman writes how he does because he "needs to keep those invitations coming"? Why do so many say silly things?

[Greyhound]

101. I believe I've been following and reading Paul Krugman for years and years

and have seen the turn-around as this clusterfuck became a done deal.

Railing against the people that write your checks is only tolerated so far and since it's done, what's the upside to pointing out that we've been fucked again.

ETA; and you avoided the question entirely.

[johan helge]

104. I'm sure you can do better than this! (nt)

[LWolf]

38. There is a simple solution.

Nominate and elect liberal, not corporatist, candidates, and #2 is a non-issue.

[johan helge]

42. Yes, I think the Dems should nominate more

liberal candidates, because I think they can win.

But the issue is what should liberals do, given that the Ds are like they are.


And, let's not forget: Liberals wanted Obama. In general, a liberal politician/candidate will be less liberal as President, because he has to compromise with Congress, etc.

[LWolf]

49. Some liberals did.

Because he was the "not the dlc" primary candidate, which was ludicrous.

Because they could project their hopes for liberal "change" onto his ambiguous, feel-good speeches.

Because the prospect of electing a person of color was so huge that many never looked beyond the wrapper and sound bites.

This leftist liberal never wanted Obama. I considered him center-right from the first time I heard him speak, and I did not offer any support during the campaign.

I DID send a letter of congratulations, along with a book on education policy, on election day. It was my effort to "reach across" the Democratic aisle. It was returned unopened and unread.

[johan helge]

53. They returned it unopened?

Do you know why? How do they decide which letters to open, and which to return unopened?

Anyway, you are right, not all liberals supported Obama. But I think one should support the D candidate against the repub, even if one hoped for another D candidate.

[LWolf]

55. Yes, I know why.

I got a note, on an envelope attached to the unopened envelope and box, explaining that Obama does not accept gifts.

Except that the box did not contain a gift. It contained an attached letter, in an envelope on the outside of the box, which was not opened, and a book about education policy. A bound policy paper.

He accepted a book from Chavez. His staff didn't even bother with my letter, let alone responding to the policies outlined in the book.

I thought about cutting up the book and mailing the pages a few at a time, but it didn't seem worth it. By the time I finished fuming, he'd appointed Arne Duncan as education secretary, and his direction was clear. He's going the opposite way I wrote him about.

[johan helge]

64. If I were you

I would have sent him a new letter, without a book.

[LWolf]

102. Why?

Was he going to fire Duncan at that point?

I DID post regularly on the site that Duncan posted questions to answer. Many teachers and others did. Overwhelmingly, the responses to the Obama/Duncan plans for increasing charter schools, merit pay, and using test scores to grade teachers were negative.

Did that change something, cause them to rethink the plan before rolling it out and tying so-called "stimulus" money to their unpopular, unhelpful, and harmful "reforms?"

[johan helge]

106. One letter

- or one vote, for that matter - seldom changes anything. But the sum of all letters, and all votes, matters!

[LWolf]

117. I used to think that, too.

The sum of all the responses didn't make a difference for education this time. Despite an overwhelming majority of people telling Duncan they didn't approve of the current agenda, he moved it forward anyway.

He can probably use that conversation to insist that he "listened." And then did what he wanted to anyway. Or did what a very tiny fraction of the responses, which of course, coincidentally agreed with him, wanted him to do.

[johan helge]

129. Yes, you're right

- letters can be ignored, of course. But there are other reasons to write letters:

- Sometimes letters are not ignored.
- The people who have written, have at least done what they could do. The mess is not their fault, but the fault of the politicians and the passive people.

[JamesA1102]

40. You nailed it!!!!

Liberals have to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. When they walk away like spoiled children saying I'm taking my ball and going home, that forces Dems to cater to the middle and the right in order to get re-elected.

[johan helge]

43. Exactly

It's pretty strange, that it's an uphill struggle to say support the Dems, on Democratic Underground.

[LWolf]

134. That's a fallacy.

Liberals don't make the "perfect" the enemy of the "good." There is no perfect.

Liberals make the "good" the enemy of the "lesser evil."

[PVnRT]

47. It's OK to be disappointed and ignored - just keep sending money and volunteers!

I mean, who cares that we're ignored once they're in office?

[johan helge]

62. If liberals are disappointed with Obama

they can make this clear the following way: They can try to get another Dem candidate in 2012. If this alternative candidate have approximately as big a chance to win as Obama, I would support that.

But once the Dem candidate is chosen, the best the liberals can do for liberalism, is to send money and volunteers.

[treestar]

110. There are many other people

there's a strange self centered need for attention here. Many work and send money and are happy but don't expect specific rewards for it, knowing 1) that it is not possible and 2) it is corrupt.

Feeling "ignored" here is to have expected specific attention that was impossible. One does not support politicians to get specific attention, but thinking they are people who will lead in the right direction generally.

One can go after what one wants individually in one's own life. Politics is about the community as a whole.

[LostInAnomie]

54. The "I'm going to take my ball and go home" mentality is why Liberals never get taken seriously.

That's one of the big problems with our party. We are made up of a bunch of diverse groups, and a lot of them think a noble defeat is somehow better than compromise. Somehow history proving us right is supposed to be a comfort.

Politicians aren't going to try to represent people like that because they can never be satisfied and will sit out elections if they don't get their way. When we sit out elections, we announce that we are an electorate that cannot be counted on. That we are petulant children that shouldn't be taken seriously. That's one thing the Repukes have on us. They can be depended on to vote.

[johan helge]

58. Now I think I understand the difference

between liberals and conservatives more: Conservative politicians are proud conservatives, so conservatives happily vote for them. Liberal politicians, on the other hand, have been forced to hide or dilute their liberalism, to get elected (e.g. Bill Clinton). And that makes liberals less faithful voters.

[TheKentuckian]

60. Here is the bullshit part of this premise

Conservative Democrats not only threaten to take their balls and go home, they are perfectly comfortable with giving the ball to the other team and scoring for them too.

Carter didn't loose because liberals abandoned him, he lost because the more conservative "Reagan Democrats" did. I won't argue about Gore but it is the right wing voters that abandon the party in serious numbers when they get ready and it is conservative Democratic legislators that hold the party hostage and cross over all the time.

The argument falls on it's ass the second the logic is applied to both ends of the big tent.

[LostInAnomie]

65. That's a pretty creative dodge of the most obvious example...

... of my argument in the last 25 years. Al Gore lost because of exactly what I was talking about. A primary challenge from the left and the loss of Kennedy voters as a result didn't do Carter any favors either.

When Liberals don't show up, there is no reason to represent their views. That's the down side of Democracy. You have to vote.

[johan helge]

68. Well said (nt)

[johan helge]

67. What to do with the "centrists"

Carter would probably have lost, even if liberals had not abandoned him. My point was simply that they abondoned him, and they also abondoned Gore (and probably Obama in 2012).

"Centrists" who can choose between the sides, have much power, in all countries, and of course they use it to get their way. But the more Dem election victories, and with so progressive candidates as possible, the less damage "centrists" can do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. You mean Democratic politicians become Republican's best friends.

If they want to the votes of the left they're going to have to earn them...not just be "not as bad".

[johan helge]

59. No, Democratic politicians are not

the Republicans' best friends. In fact, they are the only opponents the Republicans have. That's why, as far as I remember, the Greens have received money from conservatives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. You mean the Greens have received money from the MIC and Corporations?

While the Democrats have shunned by contributions from the same?

How enlightening.

[johan helge]

69. It's appalling

how important money is in US politics, how lobbyists can buy influence.

But to the extent the Dems need contributions from corporations to win elections, I think they usually should accept these contributions. Because the US society can't be improved much, when Repubs win elections. And only Dems (and John McCain?) will ever try to reduce the importance of money.

I don't know who support the Greens. But I've read about some republicans giving money to the Greens, because the Repubs know so well, that the Dems are their real enemy, while the Greens help them.

[BeFree]

61. Heh

At least, in this thread, the libs who won't support the party aren't calling themselves the party's base.

We're getting somewhere.

Thanks, johan, for spreading the truth. It must be aggravating the dickens out of you, all these folks claiming that they feel deserted and all alone because they didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it.

Gawd, this country is the best and it is the best because dems have run the show most of the time. Just recently have the pubbies been running things and we've gone to hell in that time. Amazing folks can't quite grasp that reality.

Dems are a 1000 times better, but only when we are united.

[johan helge]

70. Thanks!

Probably it feels good to withdraw support from Democratic candidates one is dissatisfied with. But that makes Republicans smile. In the end, I think the best feeling comes from being the Repubs' real enemy, i.e. from trying to make them lose elections.

[BeFree]

72. What else is there?

Ya either got your pubbies, or you get your Dems.

As long as our party stays disorganized, we get pubbies. Happens every time, as history shows. I'd like to not see history repeat itself.

[johan helge]

76. Yes,

the Dems are a coalition of different groups. Only by standing together in elections, can these groups stop their main enemy.

[liberal_at_heart]

63. yawn!

Same old talking points. If there is a progressive democrat available to vote for I will vote for them. If not, then I'm voting third party. You can blame me if republicans get put in office. I don't care. I will vote for what I beleive in. Right now the democrats are so much like republicans that I am more afraid of the democrats than I am of the republicans. At least with the republicans you know what to expect. With the democrats they say one thing and do the opposite.

[johan helge]

73. Political theater

"Right now the democrats are so much like republicans that I am more afraid of the democrats than I am of the republicans."

Why do third party voters so often say things they know are silly?

Krugman about third-parties (here in France, but indirectly also in the US) (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/23/opinion/23KRUG.html?pagewanted=1):

"His moderation becomes a liability; denouncing the candidate's pro-market stance, left-wing candidates — who have no chance of winning, but are engaged in politics as theater — draw off crucial support. (...) The result is a stunning victory for the hard right."

Political theater - that's a good expression. Because third-parties are counterproductive posturing, not making the US a better country.

[liberal_at_heart]

75. You can call it whatever you like. I don't care.

[johan helge]

79. That's the problem with Greens etc.

- they don't care enough. For a long time, that has been my opinion. If they had really cared, they would have contributed in the fight against the right. And now, in this thread, two third-party voters have used exactly this expression, "I don't care". I'm not surprised by the reality, only by the candor.

[johan helge]

92. My other reply to your post was too categorical

I know two third-party voters, and they care as much as anyone. The basic problem, I think, is the idea that voting for a party more different from the Repubs than the Democrats, makes them distance themselves more from the Repubs. But in reality they please the Repubs.

[alarimer]

71. Because Democrats lie to get elected

Then betray their principles when in office. Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had but complete failure in standing up for Democratic principles. As long as they continue to use progressives for votes, we expect some things in return OR they will not get our votes again.

President Obama works for US. As does Congress, although every last one of them is in bed with corporations. I reserve the right to throw all these bums out if they deserve it. And it looks like they all deserve.

Fucking corporatist pieces of shit. I do not support any of them anymore.

[johan helge]

128. In a two-party democracy

few people can expect to agree on almost everything with the party they vote for, since each party is a coalition of different groups. And there will be only two big parties when the winner takes it all, because small parties just drain votes from their best friend among the big two.

Robert F. Kennedy jr. said once that the Repubs were 90 % corrupt, and the Dems 60 % corrupt (or something like that). On election day, the only thing that is not counterproductive, is to vote for this 60 % corrupt party.

[depakid]

78. After Democratic victories- Democrats turn into quasi-Republicans

and scold any of those who still have principles at all for opposing their sell outs- which the public looks at and figures- gee, this party and it's supposed leaders ARE weak- STAND FOR -AND WILL FIGHT FOR NOTHING.

Certainly not against the corporate right.

So liberals say screw working for these sorts- after all, why would anyone work hard for little or no pay, fighting for those who not only REFUSE out of timidity, complicity or corruption to fight for them?

All of these dressing downs from sycophants and narrow minded partisans isn't going to change that dynamic.

Good luck selling repeated excuses for can't get it done- and won't even fight the good fight to the public in 2010....

[johan helge]

132. If there's a candidate in 2012 more liberal than Obama

who also can/will win, I say run with that candidate.

But whoever becomes the candidate, I say support him - for reasons 1 and 2.

In short: The disappointment with Obama should be expressed in the primaries in 2012, not in the general election.

[MadHound]

83. Funny thing however

When FDR was faced with the same situation, the choice between going left or right, he went left and proceeded to become the only four term president. Hmmm.

A little history for you. FDR was looking forward to his first re-election bid and saw that he was getting a lot of heat from the left. He was also looking at an increasingly strong bid from the Socialist party. Much like third party challenges today, they would only be strong enough to take a lot of votes from the Democrats. FDR went left, he took a couple of planks from the Socialist platform and gave us Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. In the process he took the Congress with him, they saw which way the wind blew. He never lost the left vote and went on to great things.

So, go right and lose the left, or go left and win. Hmmm looks to me like the solution is to go left. Using the Congress as an excuse not to go to the left is nothing more than a meaningless excuse. If Obama goes left, then he can take Congress with him. It simply takes leadership, wisdom and resolve.

[johan helge]

85. Yes,

I think e.g. that Obama could be more liberal than he is, and at the same time be more popular. (So perhaps the Dems should have another candidate in 2012 than Obama.)

But the issue here is not what Dem politians should do, but what liberals should do, when Dem candidates are not as liberal as the liberals want.

Does the FDR example mean that liberals should abandon not-so-liberal Dem candidates?

The FDR example seems to show that sometimes, this can work - it can move the Dem candidate leftwards, and at the same time not cost the Dem candidate the election.

But my impression is that what usually happens, is that the candidate does not move leftwards, and the liberals do not vote for him in big enough numbers.

Why doesn't he usually move leftwards? Perhaps because:

- There are more voters in the centre than on the left.
- To compensate one centrist vote lost to the Republican candidate, the Dem candidate needs two votes won from the Greens.
- Centrist voters are perhaps more mobile than Green voters or liberals sitting home on election day. The centrist voters can be moved to vote Democratic, while the Greens often vote Green almost no matter what.

[MadHound]

88. I think that your analysis is rather simplistic and inaccurate

First off, you're essentially stating that the winning strategy is for liberals to continue to support the Democratic candidate, no matter whether that candidate is a centerist or even conservative Democrat. Otherwise we wind up with worse off that we currently are, the old lesser of two evils argument.

However the trouble with that is that it ignores political and human reality. In a democracy people have their own self interests, their own issues that they are concerned about. They are willing to compromise on some other issue if their one of their own issues is addressed in a manner they see fit. The left hasn't had one of their issues addressed, to anywhere close to their satisfaction for over thirty years. Thus, they drop out, go Green, stay home, etc. The inactive voter, who is, by a large margin a fairly liberal voter these days, is the largest potential voting bloc going right now. If you threw them a bone, much like FDR did, they will turn out in large numbers.

The trouble with the lesser of two evils strategy is that it constantly drives members of the left out of the party as they become burned out and frustrated. And that pool of inactive voters becomes larger, the Democratic party becomes more tilted towards the right, by default, and the vicious spiral continues. Which is how we wind up with good Republican presidents like Clinton running as Democrats.

This vicious spiral is mounting out of control, as the Democrats move ever right and the 'Pugs move into fascism territory. There needs to be a good hard pull to the left, perhaps Obama and the current Dems will respond. If not, well that vicious circle continues.

[johan helge]

98. The median voter

I can easily believe that "If you threw them a bone, much like FDR did, they will turn out in large numbers". But the question here is not what the Dem politicians should do, but what liberals should do, given that the Dems are as they are.

"The inactive voter, who is, by a large margin a fairly liberal voter these days": That means that "a good hard pull to the left" (in the meaning liberals not voting Democratic) is tried today, has been tried a lot in every election. What I am saying is: If all those passive or Green liberals had voted Democratic, the Democrats would have won more elections, and both the Dems and the Repubs would have been less conservative than they are today. Health care reform would have been better and done a long time ago, no Iraq war, perhaps no Vietnam war, etc.

The most important thing is the median voter on the left-right scale (among the D and R voters). Simply said, the party that wins him, wins the election. If more liberals vote D, he moves towards the left. The Dems will follow him towards the left because they want to, the Repubs because they have to, to win elections.

But what about a massive "if Obama doesn't move left, we don't vote", and, if Obama moves left, a massive liberal turnout? Again, that may be what is tried today. As you say, "If you threw them a bone, much like FDR did, they will turn out in large numbers". But the Dems probably don't believe they will turn out in big enough numbers, and, of course, perhaps they are right. After all, the experience is pretty stable numbers of liberal non-voting and Green-voting. And that's the problem, because that means that the median voter usually is more rightwards than he could have been.

[Odin2005]

84. What you you expect when I voted for a Dean and got a Clinton?

[LoZoccolo]

86. Vote against Obama and you'll get a Palin. n/t

[557188]

87. I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote what I don't want and get it.

I will never vote for another conservative or even centrist Democrat ever again in my life.

If I vote for them I am at fault for enabling them with my vote. I am to blame for putting them in a position of power. I will not have blood on my hands.

IF YOU VOTE FOR THESE AWFUL DEMOCRATS YOU ARE THE ONES AT FAULT!

Fear based voting is ridiculous. Fear is a tactic the right wing uses and to see supposed people of the left use it is absolutely disgusting.

George W Bush never tried to give us fascist health insurance.

[johan helge]

107. The Democratic party

is a coalition of different groups. If one of those groups - leftists - will only vote for Dem candidates from their own group, this will give the Repubs more election victories.

Why do people call this argument "fear"? Do they mean that it's untrue? If yes - they should more often give their reasons for this. If no - well, if it's a fact, then it should be taken into consideration, shouldn't it?

[Faryn Balyncd]

89. Liberals fighting for REAL reform are NOT the problem...Phony "reform" that betrays the people is...

....is what will turn the middle class into voting for Republican demagogues.

[johan helge]

124. If there's a candidate in 2012 more liberal than Obama

who also can/will win, I say run with that candidate.

But whoever becomes the candidate, I say support him - for reasons 1 and 2.

In short: The disappointment with Obama should be expressed in the primaries in 2012, not in the general election.

[Greyhound]

94. Then perhaps it is time that the party learned its lesson. n/t

[yurbud]

97. did it occur to you that the solution might be for pols to actually enact the policies they ran on?

[johan helge]

125. This is not about what Dem politicians should do

- I agree that Obama should have been more liberal, and I think he then also would have been more popular, partly because of better results (e.g. he could have supported a bigger stimulus).

This is about what liberals should do, given that Obama and the Dem politicians are as they are.

[Le Taz Hot]

100. You guys need a new schtick.

This one isn't working either.

[johan helge]

126. Voting Democratic

is the only thing that has ever done anything to stop the Repubs.

There are lots of liberals, in every election, who don't vote or vote Green. It is not thanks to them, that there will now be a new health reform, that will save many lives. It is thanks to those who voted Democratic, despite all the Democrats' faults.

[Gaywoman]

103. Totally agreed

And I tell this to my friends all the time!

[johan helge]

109. Thanks, and keep up the fight! (nt)

[Echo In Light]

105. "The main affect...is to make Democrats less, not more, liberal" = Precisely

[johan helge]

127. Thanks! (nt)

[treestar]

108. It's no wonder they don't go the left when the left abandons them

so quickly. There is no way to satisfy these people, so courting them is useless.

[girl gone mad]

111. "these people"??

tell us how you really feel.

In point of fact, there was an easy way to satisfy progressives. It was called the public option. The White House and congress abandoned it as soon as they could. So shag off with your bullshit analysis about the left abandoning the party. The left was the only wing willing to compromise anything, and after all of that compromise, we were abandoned post haste.

[katkat]

121. so quickly

How soon after your spouse is caught in adultery do you phone up the divorce lawyer?

[katkat]

112. Gore was President in 2000? Have I slipped into another space-time continuum?

I disagree with your premise. Obama had a huge public mandate, which he has squandered.

Carter is an admirable man, but was a pretty bad President.

A President isn't weak because of the public or Congress. He's weak because he's a weak individual. A strong President leads public opinion and twists arms or offers carrots to get Congress to go along.

[johan helge]

114. I didn't say

that Gore was President, but ok, I see what you mean.

Weak: I don't know if Obama could have twisted more arms for e.g. health reform. But with Lieberman etc. deciding e.g. health reform, Obama was in a weak position. That's what I mean by "weak".

[katkat]

120. I still say

Chop the federal money to Connecticut as much as possible, yank Joementum's committee posts, start making noises about relocating work from EB, and see how fast Joe changes his mind.

[Kid Dynamite]

113. Using the parlance of the day

I guess it is correct to say that your convoluted explanation has been the subject of Enhanced Interrogation.

[johan helge]

115. It's strange

that it's an uphill struggle to say "support the Dems" on Democratic Underground.

[Kid Dynamite]

116. I meant to say that your explanation is so tortured

as to be unrecognizable. Dems should move right because moving left actually causes a shift to the right? Uh-huh.

I am not big on "support the Dems" as a unilateral marching order. Unless its in the Lenin-esque "like a noose supports a hanged man" sense

[johan helge]

122. Well,

I don't say that "Dems should move right because moving left actually causes a shift to the right", but that:

If fewer liberals vote Democratic, the Dems must move rightwards, because they'll need more centrists' votes to win.

That was less tortured, I hope!

[KakistocracyHater]

119. a central flaw to your argument is #2

I heard Pres. Obama jettissoned the LIBERALS who helped him WIN; the policy-makers who had actually put on his official website info about "public option", posted all around this site, is just 1 piece. Another is he hired Rick Warren to be at his Inauguration, he didn't get a Liberal Pastor-his choice. Same with cabinet picks; his book has been quoted & he seems to have internalized many anti-liberal views-this is probably central to why he's making the choices he's made now.

Who is in the meetings for 'We the People..', when the Banksters & CEO's are there? Is it you, Obama? You said you'd be there, just reminding........

[johan helge]

123. If there's a candidate in 2012 more liberal than Obama

who also can/will win, I say run with that candidate.

But whoever becomes the candidate, I say support him - for reasons 1 and 2.

In short: The disappointment with Obama should be expressed in the primaries in 2012, not in the general election.

[mitchtv]

133. don't worry about it

YOU can't tell anyone how to vote anyway, especially if your choice is driving away voters wholeale. I hope he is primaried as I dislike his admin's direction. I might or might not stay home, I have a mod Repub in my CD, so unless we get a real(pro marriage equality) Dem candidate, I will pass on more of the same.

[johan helge]

135. Many liberals think like you

- and that's an important reason the US got the Iraq war, such a bad health reform etc. It's sad to see how great progressives help the Repubs.

[mitchtv]

136. that's right, blame the unions for taxing benefits

blame the Gays for getting shit on, Blame liberals for Bush's war. What color is the sky on your planet?

[johan helge]

137. I blame everyone who didn't vote for Gore

for Bush's war. They didn't try to stop Bush, and have never taken responsibility for their Nader-voting or non-voting.

As Paul Krugman wrote (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/greenspan-not-a-mensch/): "Be a mensch, my parents always told me — meaning, take responsibility for your actions."

[mitchtv]

140. Liberals like pelosi and Woolsey/Boxer voted

against that abomination. While your Moderates loved it. moderates/ cowardly Dems caused it, if you want to blame anyone besides Bush

[johan helge]

141. I'm not a "moderate", but a liberal.

Yes, many Dems voted for the Iraq war, but Gore was against it.

[mitchtv]

142. sound more like a Rahm dlc'r

blaming all on liberals, when your mods marched right behind bush and Lieberman. Talk liberal , vote conservative

[johan helge]

143. MY mods?

Are you a mensch?

[mitchtv]

144. sometimes

mods meaning moderate of course. ie allowing the sellout of your ideals without a whimper

[johan helge]

145. My ideal

is to make the US government as progressive as possible. Green-voting or non-voting does not contribute to this.

[mitchtv]

146. your opinion. Mine?

let them court the green vote. Doing what you say you're going to do gets the non voters back

[johan helge]

147. That is being tried in every election

by lots of liberals. Why does it not seem to move Dem candidates leftwards? Perhaps because:

- To compensate one centrist vote lost to the Republican candidate, the Dem candidate needs two votes won from the Greens/non-voters.
- There are more voters in the centre than on the left.
- Centrist voters are perhaps more mobile than Green voters or liberals sitting home on election day. The centrist voters can be moved to vote Democratic, while the Greens often vote Green almost no matter what.

Green-voting or non-voting moves the median voter on the left-right scale (among those who vote D or R) rightwards. And simply put, the party that wins him, wins the election. So this tactic forces the Dems rightwards to win the median voter, not leftwards.

[Chan790]

138. This liberal's response.

If we could get a Democratic president elected who was capable of not being a RW/centrist quisling, then we would feel no need to criticize him.

If he does not want my criticism, he needs to begin to govern towards the left. Otherwise, I have zero problem staying home and letting him lose. None. Nada. Zip. No problem with him getting his sell-out ass handed to him by the same Republicans and DINOs he wants to be buddy-buddy with. I hope he enjoys losing. He's going to see his entire agenda go up in smoke very quickly if he does not remember who got him elected (liberals every bit as much as moderates) and who did not (conservatives)...I've got no problem with him as he knows which way to lean...he clearly does not.

If he did, he'd be publically making Joe Lieberman's life hell, giving Harry Reid hell for not getting him leglisation worth signing, threatening the rest of the holdouts and problem-cases unless asses fall in-line, telling Pelosi that she's got more carte blanche to crack heads in the House, and he'd be telling people in his administration to make things work for his agenda rather than shaping his options to fit the "realities" on the ground as they see them: proactive, not reactive.

I need to see some sign of life from this presidency: either take a stand and crack some coconuts to show he can or start firing people for leading him astray. The "Can Rahm" thing...not a request, a demand. If we wants our support, he cannot have his status-quo. The blood's in the water.

Otherwise, I stay home. A lot of liberals stay home with me. Good riddance to bad Democrats.

[johan helge]

139. If there's a candidate in 2012 more liberal than Obama

who also can/will win, I say run with that candidate.

But whoever becomes the candidate, I say support him - for reasons 1 and 2.

In short: The disappointment with Obama should be expressed in the primaries in 2012, not in the general election.

[zalinda]

148. Have any of you ever noticed that people

respond to LOOKING STRONG. It doesn't matter what the politician says as much as that he is perceived as being strong. The repubs know this, and apparently the dems don't. One of the main reasons McCain lost was because he looked weak. Kerry almost won, but he wimped out to the Swift Boaters.

People who do not follow politics are looking for strength. They don't understand triangulation. They want someone who appears to be strong and will work for them. This is why the debates are so important, not that the average voter watches them, they just want to know who won, so they can vote for the winner.

The dems again looked weak when it came to HCR. When the taxes start coming out of the paychecks and health care doesn't really kick in until after the election, I think people will notice. It's not looking good.

zalinda

[johan helge]

149. HCR comes late

but I think it will be a good thing for the popularity of the Dems. E.g., people with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance. Somehow that must get through the noise.