Yglesias: How To Move Americans Politics To The Left

[Recursion]

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/24/277451/how... /

Jeffrey Sachs unloads a truck full of righteous indignation on Barack Obama and the leaders of the Democratic Party. Some my find it cathartic. I find that while Sachs is a brilliant economist, his model of American politics seems flawed. In particular, the concluding thought that “America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites” is badly under-explained.

My counter-proposal, which is boring, goes like this. If you want to move US public policy to the left, what you have to do is to identify incumbent holders of political office and then defeat them on Election Day with alternative candidates who are more left-wing. I think this works pretty reliable. To my mind, the evidence is pretty clear that even the election of fairly conservative pushes policy outcomes to the left as long as the guy they’re replacing was more conservative. And if your specific concern is that the Democratic Party isn’t as left-wing as you’d like it to be, then what you need to do is identify incumbent holders of political office and then defeat them in primaries with alternative candidates who are more left-wing. It’s noteworthy that even failed efforts to do this, such as Ned Lamont’s 2006 run against Joe Lieberman and Bill Halter’s 2010 run against Blanche Lincoln led to meaningful policy shifts simply by being credible. But left-wing critics of the Democrats often seem to me to be somewhat in denial about their poor record of success with these endeavors. “If we can’t beat a Senator in Connecticut, let’s take on an incumbent president who’s substantially more liberal than Lieberman” isn’t a logical program of action. The right lesson to learn from these Senate bids is that they’re worth trying again if circumstances are right, but that even they may be too ambitious. You walk before you run. Maybe you win state legislative and House races before you win Senate elections. Research indicates that previous experience in elective office is one of the main predictors of candidate success, so perhaps it’s only through a concentrated effort to increase progressive representation in state government that a pool of talented primary challenges can be generated. Or maybe there’s a great Senate challenger right around the corner, and if so that would be well worth writing a column about.

This prescription is, I’m afraid, boring. And the solution proposed is, I’m afraid, hard work. But politics is hard work! The Republican Party has become very ideologically rigorous because the conservative movement now has a decades-long record of defeating incumbent officeholders at all levels in primaries, and then of having those winning primary candidates win a general election. This was and is an impressive achievement that required a lot of hard work over a long period of time.

Conservatives have been busting their asses organizing and electing people to school boards, city councils, and state legislatures for decades now, and they're reaping the rewards of that. Ralph Reed once said, "I'd rather have the school boards than the White House", and whether or not he meant this, the effect of having the school boards now is that the white house becomes easier to get years down the line.

This idea means saying Dean was right even though most of this board seems to misunderstand what he did: it means electing and continuing to support moderate to conservative Democrats who are less conservative than the Republican they displaced. Everybody here pulled for Alan Grayson and sent him money. Did anybody send money to or support Gene Taylor? Ike Skelton? When we turn our backs on the Democrats who kept our party in the South and Midwest we lost big.

[BeFree]

1. The Left lacks leaders

We don't have leaders willing to take on the task of getting a campaign up and rolling.

And the Dem party apparatus really frowns upon the passionate lefties who could do such a thing.

Kucinich and Grayson are just two examples.

In the last election somewhere in the neighborhood of just 15% of the population placed t-baggers in power. What was their secret?

Tbgrs have passion, they have a clean and clear message and they were accepted by their party.

How do we influence our party to welcome us with open arms?

If there is an answer to that question, I'd sure like to hear it.

[Recursion]

2. He's giving you the answer: stop looking for leaders and elect somebody to your city council

We don't have leaders willing to take on the task of getting a campaign up and rolling.

And the Dem party apparatus really frowns upon the passionate lefties who could do such a thing.

Kucinich and Grayson are just two examples.

Grayson lost his seat and Kucinich is probably about to thanks to redistricting. These are the leaders you want to look to? I think Yglesias is right: we need to concentrate less on loudmouths (and I meant that charitably) who make us feel good and more on people who are to the left of the current incumbent wherever they are -- even if that means supporting (and I mean really supporting: money, phone calls, etc.) conservative Democrats in the South and Midwest. This was the moveon.org idea behind Jim Webb's candidacy and behind the 50 state strategy, but we got way beyond ourselves in terms of what was possible in the short term.

[BeFree]

3. Yeah, sure

But let us look at what won. WON. WON

The conservatives. The republicans. The Teabaggers.
How did they win? And why did we lose. You haven't answered that.

And yeah, Grayson and Kucinich are MY KIND OF LEADERS.
And here you are frowning on them. Some leader you are, eh?

[Recursion]

4. I'm not sure what "leader" means to you

I've never particularly seen the appeal of Kucinich (pro-life until very recently, pro-gun-control but had a pistol permit himself), and Grayson was going in a direction that troubled me, the kind of constant poutrage and in some cases, frankly, dishonesty ("taliban dan") that I've come to expect from the right.

I guess it's just the Dean effect: get angry on TV and progressives swoon -- despite the fact that Howard Dean is to the right of Obama on almost every identifiable issue.

And here you are frowning on them.

I donated to Grayson's campaign; I was just disappointed that he deliberately made himself a national lightning rod when he should have been concentrating on keeping that seat.

[BeFree]

5. Don't send money that is a waste

Because your dissing them on a public forum is far weightier.

I am talking about winning. You are talking about losing.

You are like the dem party apparatus that chases away Lefties, leaving us devoid of leaders and allowing the cons to con everyone.

Here is the dem party platform which you seem to emulate: "Ewww, don't be bold, don't attract attention, don't do what has proven to win, besides you are just too liberal for me."

No wonder we are losing it. Eh?

[Recursion]

7. You don't really think that posting on DU is more effective than sending money, do you?

I think we may have located part of our problem here...

[BeFree]

9. Yeah, the problem is

You are dissing the best leaders the left has. On a lefty forum no less.
You want to find the answer? Don't look in the mirror.

But you are a fine representative of the party structure that lost the house to teabaggers.
And you just carry on like nothing happened.
And dissing our leaders!!

[Recursion]

11. Why do you care about "leaders" so much? What we lack is numbers

Numbers of people willing to get out and organize and elect people to low-level offices reliably. That's what will produce leaders, eventually.

[BeFree]

13. Now look in the mirror

You said: "...get out and organize and elect people to low-level offices..."

Uhm, those 'people' are what the rest of us call "Leaders."

Who the hell wants to lead people who will eventually stab them in the face on DU?
Sorry, our best are to good too want to take that shit. They run the other way.

Do you get what I am saying?

[Recursion]

15. You vastly overestimate who cares about DU

Do you get what I am saying?

Yes, you think people outside of DU care what we say here, and you're wrong.

[BeFree]

16. I know

They probably welcome you in the party office when you start dissing Grayson and Kucinich?

Well do they or don't they? Yes, you are nothing here on DU.
Are you anything in the party structure? You seem to fit right in.

[Recursion]

17. Can you try that again with grammar?

As I read it, you're asking if people in the party office like that I have complained about Grayson and Kucinich on an online forum. The answer is: they neither know, nor would they care if they did. We're a lot more concerned with getting voting representation in Congress for those of us who live in DC (have you done anything to help that?) We've mentioned Kucinich with amusement and Grayson with some exasperation (he should have kept that seat, and could have if he hadn't made such a national spectacle of himself). Mostly we're concerned about the DC oversight subcommittee (Gowdy in particular), the DC city council (which can't seem to stop ordering SUVs for itself), and the mayor (who can't seem to remember how another candidate got paid thousands of dollars from the mayor's campaign fund).

[BeFree]

18. Sounds like a bunch of crooks

Grayson and Kucnich are NOT crooks.
But there you go dissing them again. My gawd! You just can't stop, can you?

[Recursion]

28. What can I say? Marion Barry is on the council...

Anyways: I don't do hero worship. They're both more or less decent guys with some flaws who say stuff that on balance I think hasn't helped. Why does it bother you so much that I hold that opinion of them?

[BeFree]

30. Why?

Because you are dissing 2 great leaders of the left. And destroying party unity.

So fucking what they might have made a mistake? What is your problem?

[LoZoccolo]

23. Kucinich was frowned upon because he does things like

threaten to obstruct the health care bill, or runs for president and attacks the other candidates for not proposing things which he himself is advocating from a position of not having to actually implement because he is not going to get elected. It's one thing to advocate something more progressive than the average Democrat, and still another to obstruct what they actually are able to accomplish at the moment.

[BeFree]

34. Heard it all before

To Liberals, from the party: "STFU"
"We don't want you here and you'll never get elected."

Frankly, such messages make me sick. And the country, too. It is sick, right?

[LoZoccolo]

36. You did not understand my post, or are choosing to ignore it.

I make an important distinction which you fail to address. You do not establish that Democrats are engaged in supressing both types of actions taken by progressives.

[BeFree]

38. You seem to think we are making progress?

And I think the country is sick and going backwards.

What you propose is kicking Kucinich to the curb and I say we should be listening to Kucinich.
Elevating Kucinich. We'd have a far better health care system if we did.

Is that clear?

[LoZoccolo]

40. Part of our lack of progress was the election of Nader.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court or the Bush* campaign did, if those Nader voters had accepted any progress as progress and voted for Gore, we would not have had eight years of a Bush* presidency, and four years of Republicans being in control of every branch of government.

"We'd have a far better health care system if we did."

It depends on what you mean by elevating Kucinich (and this is the distinction that for the second time you have passed over). If you want to sell Kucinich's ideas to a larger swath of people so that we have more Democrats like him who are willing to positively vote for a more liberal health care option, then you'll make progress. If Kucinich wants to be the lone wolf who wants to stop any progress on health care because he alone deems it not good enough (as he threatened), then you'll find that I want to oppose him in order to make progress.

[BeFree]

42. Two wrongs make you right?

First, it was a stolen election, not Nader.

Second, Kucinich did not obstruct the health care bill. It got passed. He voted against it because:

IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

[LoZoccolo]

45. Kucinich did not vote against it.

He threatened to, but eventually did not vote against it.

Again, "blame" is not a concept that I'm applying to the 2000 election. If every Nader voter in Florida had voted for Gore, than Bush* would not have been elected.

I'm not sure what you mean by "two wrongs make you right?" What are the two wrongs to which you refer?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

41. I'll add that we have other progressive members of Congress.

We have ones who have a more liberal proposal for health care than what was enacted, and continue to push for further progress. I haven't mentioned them negatively or kicked them to the curb, because they were willing to cooperate on the progress that was possible while pushing for more. My objection is not toward people who will work for more liberal policies, but toward ones who give up all possible progress to try to get some which is not possible at the moment (but may be as consensus is gained in the electorate).

[Armstead]

6. That is true -- But it doesn 't address the real problem of Corporate Democratic Power

I live in an area that is very blue politically, and Democrats are in control on local and state level. My Congressman, for example, is very quiet and boring, but he is very reliably a true progressive when it comes to what he supports and voted for.

Even Republicans who win know they have to be moderate to win and keep their seats.

Fine, great, wonderful for my little corner of the world.

But on a national level, what happens too often is any effort to follow the advice in the OP is that anyone who is "too" progressive and poses any kind of challenge to the status quo gets the hammer dropped on them by the National Democratic Pragmatic Corporate Power Structure. They pump money and endorsements and other support behind the tame DLC wanna-bes.

And when the full force of the party that is supposedly on our side is used against you, it's almost as bad as having to go up against the Rive/Koch Machine.

Yes, Dean gave support to a wide range of Democrats. But he didn't try to squash progressives,. Evidence of the extent of corruption in the Dem Establishment is the fact that instead of being rewarded his success in broadening the base of the Democratic Party in 2008, he was sent into exile by the likes of Rahm Emmanuel.

So, yes the recommendation above is correct. BUT that has to be accompanied by "Hell No" pushback against the attempts by Corporate Beltway Democratic Elites to keep the straightjacket on.

[Recursion]

8. So work for more liberal people in the DNC by *getting them elected*

The Tea Party has done it to the GOP (in reverse) so if you want to see the DNC move to the left, go vote for DNC slots.

As a reminder, the fact that the Tea Party did that is why the GOP did not take over the Senate, though. These "corporatists" (still trying to figure out what that word means -- corporations are a large part of why our poor are richer than India's rich) you so despise are the people who are actually getting our party elected in districts that aren't comfortably blue like yours.

[Armstead]

10. By Corporate Democrats I mean.....

The whole stripe of Democrats who tacitly or actively support the right-wing corporate agendas, and do a slightly nicer version of what the Republicans do by margiunalizing, ignoring and dismissing true liberalism and progressive populism. Thus aiding the process of concentration of power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

I am NOT referring to the diference between "moderaste" and more "left."

Tom Harkin is a true moderate mainstream Liberal Democrat. Not a firebrand, or "far-left," but a true liberasl and you knows what he stands for, and it is on the side of the people. Numerous other examples of Democrats of various shades who are aligned with liberal and progressive values and goals and message, like Sherrod Brown, Marci Kaptur, Pete deFazio, Barbara Lee, etc.

Evan Bayh, Bill Clinton, Harold Ford et. al. are examples of Corporate Democrats. Alas, it has become obvious President Obama is aligned with that.

[Recursion]

12. I guess I'm just stuck on the term "corporate"

NPR is a corporation; the Koch Industries is not. I'm not sure why the word "corporate" has to get thrown around here with universal disapproval.

[Armstead]

14. That would take a very long post and a lot of reading. But in a nutshell...

Look at how, over the last 35 years, most industries and sectors of the economy have shifted from a reasonably diverse mix of larger and smaller companies into a dominance by a tiny handful of massive corporate conglomerates -- some of which dominate more than one sector (see GE).

Look at how, over the last 35 years or so, Corporate America has shifted from a reasonably balanced set of priorities that included profit but also had relationships with their employees and consumers -- to a situation where people no longer matter and wild, crazy growth is the only criteria. And how this translates into abusive behavior on all levels.

I could go on, but that should at least give you an idea about why I (and so many others) make a distinction. Liberal and Progressive Democrats support a true diverse free-enterprise system and a broadly-based economy that benefits all. By contrast, the Corporate Democrats are similar to Republicans in their support of the interests of the Corporate Oligarchy.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

24. Nope; I've never gotten an answer other than the two above

Either "it would take to long to tell you the super-secret history of these 'corporations' and all the evil the wreak" (as opposed to, say, "businesses", which are apparently different from "corporations") or your "you must be a corporatist because it's not immediately obvious what they are".

I understand what conservative Democrats are, and why we dislike them (I do too, incidentally), but I don't see why one particular way (of many) of governing a business is described as if that is the problem.

[Armstead]

29. It's not "super secret." The answer is obvious if you pay attention.

But some people, ahem, would prefer just to accept the conventional wisdom that has been supplied by the corporate oligarchs and parroted by their minions in politics and the media rather than actually look at things and accept the uncomfortable truth.

We have, as a result of policies that Corporate Democrats along with Republicans, have supported, allowed wealth and power to become concentrated into the hands of a very small minority, while the majority have been losing ground. The basic facts are well-known and they speak for themselves, if you bother to listen.

Being anti-Corporate Power is NOT the same as being anti-business or "unrealistic utopians." I personally, would be satisfied if we would even start moving back towards the accepted sense of decency and fair play that existed up til the 1980's. (No it was never perfect, but we now consider economic behavior and values as "normal" that would have been considered outrageous and indecent and nonsensical when I was younger.)

I could give you countless specific examples of the whys and hows -- But I won't bother because you obviously choose not to care about it, and you would apparently rather dismiss those who want to actually address core issues.

That attitude is part of the problem -- not part of the solution.

[Yavin4]

19. Step 1: Get Alan Grayson Back in Congress

Step 2: Run Alan Grayson for Governor, Senator of Florida

[Recursion]

25. Can Grayson win statewide in Florida? Really?

We disagree on that. But go for it. If that fails, maybe be willing to work for a Democrat who *can* win Florida and is to the left of whoever is there now.

[LoZoccolo]

20. This article basically advocates what I advocate.

The conservative movement we face now took around forty years to develop. There was a liberal resurgence starting in 2003, but it has focused more on threatening Democrats than creating a more liberal electorate. We've effectively largely wasted about eight years so far.

I've been told that this political strategy, that is described in the article in the original post, is fantasy, but the right is willing to do it (they've been shifting the electorate through right-wing radio and now television programs) and the right is willing to keep working at it for the long haul. They are also willing to accept any progress as progress. They are, for instance, willing to erode access to abortion if they cannot ban it outright, and there hasn't been a right-wing revolt against Republicans over their failure to completely eradicate it yet.

A lot of people wish we were as strong as Republicans, but it took a lot of work for them to get to where they are now, and you have to be willing to do it. I'm not trying to discourage anybody by setting it out either; just because there's no quick fix doesn't mean that you shouldn't work for the difficult, long-term, but lasting and solid fix.

[Recursion]

26. "Willing to accept any progress as progress"

I think that's a big part of the difference. Can't end Social Security now? Fine: we'll support a revenue/benefit structure that will make it untenable 30 years down the road. Etc.

[Armstead]

31. Quick fix? Well, I wouldn't call 30 years "quick" -- Many people afre impatient for a reason

The same excuses and insults that are now told to people who want to see a more liberal and progressive Democratic Party have been used to marginalize mainstream liberalism for at least 30 years.

So, please forgive us if some people (myself included) are really fed up with hearing the same nonsense from Democratic "centrists" that was said when we tried to object to and warn about things like media deregulation and financial deregulation and corporate free trade in the 90's -- and going back further, to hearing Democrats fail to challenge the wisdom of corporate mega-mergers in the 80's.

Quick Results? Heck I'd be satisfied if we'd just slow down the Democratic Establishment's continual slide to the right.

[LoZoccolo]

33. I wasn't calling 30 years "quick".

And it is not me, the author of the article, the DLC, the blue dogs, or the Democratic leadership setting the terms for the change; it's simply the way things have worked out for the right wing, the natural consequences of their actions. They've been willing to put in the hard work needed to move the dividing line between the Republicans and Democrats gradually to the right for a sustained period, and really haven't tinkered with the idea with letting certain members of their own party lose office in order to scare others (which has set us back in terms of all the issues that George W. Bush* and his Republican congress affected). Maybe I should say that we've lost ten years rather than seven.

[Armstead]

37. The difference is that the teabaggers only differ from the Republican mainstream in degree

The teabaggers (and their predecessors) may be more extreme than the so-called moderate mainstream Republicans. But they all share the same basic principles, and rowing in the same direction. The teabaggers and others of the extreme right are just the "astroturfed" version of the Bushes and Romneys, and are the beneficiaries of the same corporate support.

The problem on the Democratic side is that the so called "left" and the more conservative "centrist" Democrats are rowing in very different directions. Therefore, the grassroots progressive populists -- and even the more moderate straightforward liberals -- are at odds weith the democratic Establishment on many basic principles these days.

I know you think that nader was a bogeyman. But if you look at the majority of his positions and message, he is simply espousing what used to be mainstream Democratic liberalism....Heck, if you set aside Vietnam and just look at their social and economic agendas, Hubert Humphrey and LBJ would be branded as "way too far left" by the conservaDems. "Medicare? My God, people and the corporations would never stand for that. We can't even put that on the table."

I personally do believe that the Democratic party can and should be the political vehicle for the entirte center-to-left half of the political equation. However, it is a fallacy to believe that achieving that (or re-achieving it) is not in direct contradiction to what many in the Democratic power structure believe in or want these days.

Therefore, comparisons with the teabaggers and the Republicans are fallacious. Some Republicans may be nervous or disapproving of the extent and timetables of the teabaggers, but they recognize that they are part of their base, share the same basic goals and the establishment therefore caters to them.

[LoZoccolo]

39. "are rowing in opposite directions"

Not always, and not even most of the time. Every blue dog has a significant partisan voting record (and you're free to name one that doesn't, but I would suggest that you check first because I've gone through this exercise before and no one's been able to give me one that hasn't; I like to use the Washington Post's congress site to look up voting records because they will list the percentage of party-line votes where the two parties differ).

And even if they were, there is still no strategic advantage to a third party. If you actually want to get someone in office to do these progressive things, you'll still have to convince people to vote for the third party, which is at least as difficult if not more difficult than getting them to vote for a progressive primary candidate. The same amount of effort in convincing them to vote for that person is there in both cases. I would argue that it's more difficult to get them to vote third party because you not only have to sell them on the progressive position, but also sell them on the tenuous strategy which has failed at least once, if not twice in the last eleven years, and has been catastrophic in terms of progressive policy.

I feel that there simply is no substitute for creating a liberal electorate in a democracy. The Republicans are still engaged in creating a more conservative one, and we cede control every year we do not do this work.

[Armstead]

43. You missed something in my post

I said I agree with you that I believe the Democratic Party can and should be the political vehicle for the entire half of the political spectrum from center-to-left.

But I do see a bigger problem in the rowing in different directions. One example, financial deregulation in the late 1990's. That was in direct opposition to basic liberal positions on reasonable regulation and it was totally in opposition to the basic principles of anti-monopolistic anti-trust controls....That was NOT a simple matter of moderates and liberal/progressives differing in degree on shared goals. And as a result of that, our economy is now totally enslaved to the "too big to fail" financial monopolies that now exist.

Sure, even rather conservative Democrats will, also support many similar things as liberals and progressives. But on the big issues (and on the fundamental commitment to liberalism as a legitimate political position) there are vast difference between corporate centrist Democrats and the more liberal and progressive base (including moderate but clear liberals).

That makes this more complicated and difficult, and unfortunately requires more fundamental changes than the GOP has to make to keep the teabaggers in their fold.

[LoZoccolo]

52. I'm sorry that I missed that.

I mostly agree with you, and would like to replace some of those Democrats; the only thing that I really get steamed about is the idea that you can do it by putting in a Republican. I think you would still have to sway the electorate if you ever want a progressive Democrat in office. And I'm willing to cede to the possible to win more time to work toward a more ideal policy.

[Armstead]

53. You referred to one of the critical points

"I think you would still have to sway the electorate if you ever want a progressive Democrat in office."

In order to get more progressives in office, the chicken-and-egg dilemma has to be resolved somehow. In other words, the national Democratic structure has to actively endorse progressive/liberal positions and help to sell them -- but that requires having more liberals and progressives in a position to do so.

That's the conundrum. Has to be more give-and-take among all factions for that to happen.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. A fairer and more functional election process would help with that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

55. *crickets*

[snot]

27. Kicking for the OP.

[hfojvt]

32. there's another hidden part that is probably important too

send progressive delegates to the convention

I also cannot see sending money to somebody like Ike Skelton.

If TV ads are any indication, he didn't lose because of a lack of money anyway. I must have seen 100 of his ads.

[Recursion]

35. Well, there we go

I also cannot see sending money to somebody like Ike Skelton.

Which is why MO-4 now represented by Vicky Hartzler, an absolutely psychotic conservative.

[hfojvt]

51. No, I highly doubt if $100 from me would have helped

Why not send my money to Stephanie Herseth? Why not to Raj Goyle, who I consider a DINO but far more progressive than Pompeo, to be sure? Why not to Stephen Moore, who is part of a political dynasty, being spouse of the six term DINO incumbent Dennis Moore, but still far more progressive than Yoder?

But am I made of money?

Not to mention the dozens of hours I already spent at headquarters.

Mo-4 probably would have been better served if Skelton had "retired" about six years ago and they could have found a successor. I don't like Congresspeople-for-life even if the said politician is a progressive.

[librechik]

44. what good does it do ME to identify left wing candidates

When it's the DNC and the DCCC that actually picks and funds the candidates and routinely rejects favorites of the left as unelectable. I can support and push as much as I want and they will nix my choices every time. And how do we change those people? Some of them weren't even elected!

Also, when a true leftie makes it into congress, (Sanders, Wellstone) they are the loneliest people in Washington. It would take generations to change our politics the way you describe.

With all that, I still think it's the only thing to do...even if it is hopeless! What other choice do we have? We can just give up. Is that finally an option?

[Recursion]

47. Yes, it took the Right generations

It would take generations to change our politics the way you describe.

Yes. It took the Right that long. Why would our job be any easier?

[librechik]

48. they had it easy in the first place--they oinly needed to organize a small group

of millionaires and billionaires to fund think tanks and candidates and make it happen. We don't have that, we don't have the unity of doctrine that they had (have), and we have millions of uneducated politically naive people to organize -- with no think tanks and no money. Good luck to us. And our children.

[Recursion]

49. Well, no, that's precisely not what it was

They started back in the 80s electing people to school boards and city councils.

[LoZoccolo]

50. "When it's the DNC and the DCCC that actually picks"

Nope.

[JoeyT]

54. The only real problem with this is that we keep getting leaders that

are not only not making progress fast enough, but actively oppose progress or destroy it.

Free Trade being a prime example.