If we're agreed that Democrats are currently the problem, what shall Progressives do?

by: Michael Kwiatkowski

Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:25


After reading through a number of diaries complaining about Democrats, I felt compelled to write this.  Most of us - the sane, honest ones anyway - seem to agree that the problem now isn't the far-right Republican Party, but the equally far-right Democratic Party.*  What we don't seem to agree on is what to do about it.

The general point of argument amongst progressives and liberals is whether to leave the Democrats to organize around a third (or fourth or fifth) political party, or to stay the course and try to reform the party from within.  I hold that after roughly three decades watching Republicans so put off by their party's ideological excesses join and usurp the Democratic Party for their own warped interests, with cycle after cycle further weakening what passes for the progressive movement in America, we have to accept that we cannot continue trying the one-pronged approach of working from within the belly of the beast.  We're being digested, and after that there really is only one outcome.

It is long past time for us to organize around a truly progressive political party.  Understand that this is not something we should do lightly.  Those of us who make the split do so knowing full well how difficult it will be to form a viable third political party, and the level of venom and hate we'll receive from Democrats in retaliation, but it's got to be done.

The reason for this is that without the very real threat of electoral defeat, no politician is going to take the concerns of his constituents seriously.  Look at how H. Ross Perot's candidacies for president affected the Republicans.  They did not spend their time trying to suppress third party turnout directly, rather, they actively worked to (in addition to vote fraud and other voter suppression tactics) bring the wayward conservatives back into the fold.  They did this by pandering to the entirety of their party, both the lunatic religious bloc and the big business folk.  In short, after getting their asses handed to them in two consecutive presidential elections, the GOP got the message: don't ignore your base.  Embrace it.

Beginning in 1992, Republicans began the process of winning back disaffected Republicans by focusing on local, state, and finally, national elections.  They had the resources to make a huge coordinated effort, and within just two short years managed to win control of the U.S. House of representatives.  As they built their power base, Republicans united the disparate factions of their party by unifying their positions on everything from religion in government to tax breaks for the wealthy, and from dismantling the New Deal and progressive Era reforms of the 20th Century to expanding imperialist policies through military supremacy.

While the enemy was doing this, the left collapsed under the weight of its own corruption and inability to come together.  Divisions between the progressive wing that ushered in the Civil Rights era and the recently-formed and empowered DLC - which represents right-wing, corporate interests - combined with voter backlash to remove Democrats from power.  By the time Bush and Cheney stole the 2000 election from Al Gore (with absolutely NO help from Ralph Nader, whether haters want to admit it or not), the party was really nothing more than an extension of the Republicans.

If we can all agree on the fundamentals of this brief and admittedly incomplete history of the last seventeen years, then it's pretty clear that we on the left have our work cut out for us.  Given the level to which the Democratic Party has sunk in its shift to the far right,  we must honestly evaluate our chances of reforming it from within.  According to sources such as OpenSecrets.org, large corporations and their bundlers gave far more money to Democrats last year than they did to Republicans, correctly betting that they could buy out the supposed opposition so as to maintain the status quo.  We on the left simply do not have the resources to combat that kind of money-gaming politics.

Another thing we lack is the will to embrace new methods for change.  If we can't get past the barriers to shift Democrats back to the left, we have to find ways around it.  That's obvious, but too many of us don't seem to want to acknowledge that our options for working from within are now zero.  At this point, we can only hope to change things by leaving the right-wing Democratic party and organizing around a new one.  This does not mean we should completely abandon it, giving up on any and all attempts to shift its ideology leftward.  It simply means we must find an effective way to do it.  We have to build a viable third party.

History has shown this method to work. During the 1912 presidential election, progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt broke away from his party to form the Progressive Party (nicknamed the Bull Moose Party).  In so doing, Roosevelt took most of the progressive wing with him, permanently shifting the ideological makeup of the GOP to the right.  After causing incumbent William Howard Taft to place last in a three-way race between Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson, many Progressives switched over to the latter candidate's party, paving the way for FDR and the New Dealers to come to power just twenty years later.  That this led to a long-lasting era of relative prosperity for Americans and the eventual drive to bring civil rights to everyone cannot be in doubt, but it is significant in another way.  It drastically altered the existing political structure; Democrats were more left-wing, and the formerly progressive Republicans became solidly right-wing, big business representatives.  This can be done again, but not as long as we refuse to do it.

We need to form a third party, maybe a fourth as well, in order to recreate this ideological change.  Currently the Progressive Party exists primarily in Vermont and Washington, possibly a few more, and from my research I have seen that it has gotten solid results at the local and state levels.  Members have implemented working electoral strategies to win races Democrats no longer try to run in, gaining seats in the state legislatures.  There's no reason to pass up the opportunity to rebuild the namesake political party of progressives throughout the country.  We can re-open organizations and cooperate with existing ones to craft a solidly progressive, uncompromising platform, and run on it.  We would have the advantage of starting from the ground up, taking and keeping control of the process and preventing the corruption that brought down the Democrats.  We can also use a viable Progressive Party to build bridges with other independents to bring them on board.  While we do this, we can hone our positions so that they, as Bill Maher said, are properly argued and defended.

We should be realistic in our expectations and our goals.  We won't get results overnight, and a Progressive Party may or may not become a large enough political bloc to gain appreciable numbers in Congress.  We should remember that our primary mission is to swing Democrats back to the left, and if it does generate an enduring presence in the halls of power where we can do the most good, that's a bonus.  What we must not allow is for our principles or our determination to be compromised.  That way has led to the current disasters we now find ourselves in.  Let the cowards and capitulators "compromise" (read: surrender).  Let the power-hungry and ambitious join up with the Republicans; it's not as though they don't already side with them on virtually every issue anyway.  Let us stop making excuses for not doing what's necessary.

I'd like to hear some ideas for how we can do this.  If we're all agreed that this may be our last, best strategy for taking back our government from the wealthy, there are no more excuses.

Michael Kwiatkowski :: If we're agreed that Democrats are currently the problem, what shall Progressives do?
*: Spare me the dishonest ranting and raving about how there's little or no comparison between the two major parties; if there were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  If, after everything Obama and his party have done to continue or exceed the worst crimes of the Bush-Cheney years you still can't get it through your heads that there's no appreciable difference between Republicans and Democrats, you're part of the problem.
Poll
Shall progressive break with Democrats and form a third party?
Yes.
No.
I'll need to do more research before I commit.

Results


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Split the black vote (0.00 / 0)
African-Americans are much more at the core of the Democratic base than progressives, although there is some overlap.  For this to work, I think that there has to be a serious effort to alienate blacks (and other non-whites) from the Democratic Party in its current configuration.  That's probably going to be a bit tougher with Obama in the White House.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Or we can just put up better candidates. (0.00 / 0)
By now it it becoming obvious to many Blacks that Obama is just another con man.  Someone like Cynthia McKinney or Al Sharpton, now that is a candidate who might do the trick - but there has to be the party organization to support such a candidacy.  We could recruit young Blacks to run for public office, and not necessarily the Bill Cosby or Obama types.  I'm talking about the Jeremiah Wright or Martin Luther King, Jr., types.



[ Parent ]
Do you have anything to back up that assertion (4.00 / 1)
When you say "By now it it becoming obvious to many Blacks that Obama is just another con man" or are you just assuming that black voters think the way you do.

Also, Cynthia McKinney is a wackjob conspiracy theorist who claimed that the Department of Defense executed 5,000 prisoners and dumped their bodies in a Louisiana swamp in the week after Hurricane Katrina to cover things up and that George Soros is part of a shadow banking conspiracy.  She's also a strong support of the 9/11 truther movement.

McKinney is pretty much the left-wing version of Michelle Bachmann and I have serious doubts about anyone who would support her.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Don't just take my word for it. (0.00 / 0)
A number of Black organizations never supported Obama to begin with, and his former constituents in Chicago - who are forced to exist in slum conditions because of his support for legislation that gives tax subsidies to slumlords - probably don't think too highly of him either.

But I said Obama's Black support is declining.  Signs that his popularity with the Congressional Black Caucus is diminished was evident by February as he further distanced himself from it.  Historically Black colleges and universities were not at all pleased with his decision to cut education funding for them, especially at a time when they are struggling badly.  Although Black support for Obama is still relatively high, that isn't likely to remain true.

Add this to the Obamassiah's declining popularity overall as his right-wing colors are revealed more every day, and it's not hard to tell where trends are headed.

AFP reports the President's 56% overall approval rating in the NBC poll, but reports that "among independent voters, Obama fell from 60 percent approval versus 31 percent to 46 approving against 44 disapproving."

McKinney was relating something that was told to her by a woman who apparently lived in the area.  I don't know enough about the allegation, so I can't comment, but I will say that it isn't that far-fetched given the deliberate neglect that caused the deaths of thousands from flooding.  Many angry Black citizens are convinced that the levies were blown deliberately in an effort to save the richer neighborhoods from being flooded.

What you left out in your citation of the Soros hypothesis was the financial giant's own words, which don't appear to help his image.

http://www.gp.org/cynthia/disp...

George Soros, who recently told "the Australian" that making $4 billion in the last two years, despite the financial crisis, was "in a way, the culminating point of my life's work" characterizes Russia, Venezuela, and Iran as the "enemies of the prevailing world order." Soros asserts that he's having "a very good crisis," but interestingly projects a significantly less bright outlook for the United States. In fact, he compares the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.

Funny, but I don't see anything in the piece you linked to that shows her claiming Soros is part of some shadow banking conspiracy.  This is what she wrote:

George Soros is one of President Obama's advisors that we should be listening to. He says that he is hopeful that President Obama will propose increasing the capital of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to include the issue of Special Drawing Rights to facilitate the international creation of money by the IMF. Under the proposed scheme as described by Soros, countries will get an allocation that they can draw at a very low interest rate. International credit creation, he calls it, ostensibly for the benefit of the developing countries. Hmm, isn't this expanding to a global scale exactly what is wrong with the U.S. financial system?

According to Soros, under this scheme, the developed world would provide the money in order to stimulate domestic demand in poorer countries so that the poorer countries can buy products from the developed world. According to Soros, the U.S. has the Federal Reserve and the credibility to print money, and this proposal is a kind of redistribution of resources that empowers the poorest. (I'm transcribing directly from a Soros video posted on youtube.) According to Soros, this is the moment that this instrument should be used. If Obama makes this proposal, it will show that he has the leadership and the vision to restore confidence and protect the poorest and the richest countries and make everyone feel that they are better off.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't exactly look like damning criticism from McKinney, to say nothing of Soros' alleged role in the shadow banking system (which economists such as Paul Krugman have mentioned themselves).  If you're going to criticize McKinney, fine, but maybe something more solid would be in order.



[ Parent ]
What is the long term goal of this Alternative Party (0.00 / 0)
that you suggest be split from the Democratic Party?

Do you intend to try and expand the system to include alternative parties, or ultimately to become the left-wing party of the two party system?

The latter is more in line with the Bull Moose example, especially as you have described it. The latter is also in keeping with the overall structure of the political system. If history teaches us anything in this regard it is that the two party structure is very resilient and will not be changed by simply creating a new party. But, if the intention to replace the Democratic Party is clear from the outset you might be able to avoid alot of the anti-Nader rhetoric that will, inevitably, be directed at such a movement.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


I explained it in the entry, but here it is again. (0.00 / 0)
The goal in the long run is to form a leftist bloc that would force a substantial shift in the political makeup.  Just as the Progressives shifted Democrats leftward in 1912 and the Reform Party sent Republicans further to the right, a newly reformed Progressive or some other Party (such as Green, which is in desperate need of organization) could force Democrats back to the left.



[ Parent ]
Also... (0.00 / 0)
Such a third party would have to remain a long term presence in politics in order to keep the Democrats honest or, failing that, take their place as the left-wing political party in America.



[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox