Morning No: Would 80 Senators Be Enough?

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:53


Natahsa, who needed sleep this morning, calls this series "Morning No" because reading the news often elicts a response of "oh, no!"

2,000 years of GDP
Looking back through history, check out this captivating chronology of worldwide Gross Domestic Product, by region, over the last 2,000 years.

India was in the lead until 1500, when China took over. Western Europe became the equal of those two powers by 1700, and by the mid-19th century, the British Empire had moved to #1. The United States did not take over until after WWI. Personally, I was particularly interested to find that India was ever in the lead (wouldn't have guessed), and that the Roman Empire was, apparently, almost as industrious as the Chinese Empire 2,000 years ago (always wondered about that).

As cool as these lists are, they also demonstrate that Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) measurements of total GDP are a useless measurement of power. In 1820, India is listed as having a GDP three times as great the United Kingdom, even though the UK ruled almost all of India in 1820.

Mittens!
Looking ahead to 2012, Mitt Romey's approval ratings have moved sharply upward, according to Pew. The only other recent poll on Romney, conducted by CNN, confirms his upward rise.

It is hard to accept that this is because of anything Romney actually did, given that he has been so invisible that the number of people who don't know who he is has actually increased. As such, the world must be shifting under Romney's feet in a way that is proving more beneficial to him than any of his campaigning ever was. Too bad for him that, in order to become President, he will have to start campaigning again.

Is change even possible?
Forgetting about elections for a moment. Ezra Klein has a surprisingly depressing post about how no strategy, and no combination of elected officials, might make it possible to "enact wise legislation solving pressing problems." Given how relatively little change there has been even though there is a wide Democratic trifecta, significantly alternated national demographics, a new media landscape, and vast hatred of corporate power, I am sometimes inclined to think the same way. Discussions of short-term strategy and tactics often imply that we are close to achieving sweeping change, and just need to tweak our messaging and organizational structure a bit. But, as Senator Dick Durbin said after the cramdown defeat, "banks frankly own the place." Throw in our antiquated, unrepresentative Senate framework, and a 50-state structure which, more often than not, props up corporate power through a regulatory race to the bottom, and it really does often feel like we are dealing with an utterly indomitable status quo.

Harry Reid's staff can't lower the bar fast enough
My occasional feelings of futility aren't helped much by the Senate Democratic leadership tripping over itself to say that, even though Al Franken gives Democrats 60 votes in the Senate, and even though the Democratic leadership spent years raising money off trying to reach 60 votes, that 60 votes doesn't really matter much at all:

"It's true," said Manley [Harry Reid's press secretary] when reached by phone. "It is obviously sometimes difficult to say this to your audience [Huffington Post readers]. While this is, of course, good news to the people of Minnesota, President Obama, and the Senate Democratic, Franken's mere presence alone will not mean that the Democrats will be able to jam through our agenda, or make it any less critical for Democrats and Republicans to work together. We have a diverse caucus who represent diverse constituencies. No one's vote is ever automatic. Also... we have two senators that currently aren't voting right now. But then I would go back and say that up until now we have gotten very little to no help from Republicans who say no against everything and are prepared to bet on this president to fail."

Fine. Whatever. Keep spitting up whatever excuses you want. I'm sick of pretending that electing a bunch of more Democrats, and pleading with them to do the right thing, is actually going to change much at all. And I'm equally sick of the common left-wing response of threatening to vote for a third-party. Yeah, that has proven sooooo effective. The leadership isn't leading, and the longstanding alternatives just don't work.

Fortunately, there is a new strategy emerging independent of the Obama administration, independent of the Democratic congressional leadership, independent even of electoral politics and the many lame, staid, milquetoast progressive advocacy organizations. As I will discuss later today, and in the first episode of 300 Seconds, The Progressive Block is the new path. McJoan gave a good rundown of the strategy on Sunday, and Firedoglake has been absolutely instrumental in pulling it together.

Chris Bowers :: Morning No: Would 80 Senators Be Enough?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thank you for this... (4.00 / 3)
And I'm equally sick of the common left-wing response of threatening to vote for a third-party. Yeah, that has proven sooooo effective.

I'm tired of those tantrums as well... I'm glad you are calling out this completely unproductive meme... Right wingers have hated the republicans for the same reason that we hate our own party right now, that the party was too wimpy (yes, right wing activists believed that their party "caved" way too many times to Democrats), but they were never suicidal about it... Oh, they screamed about voting third party, but they pretty much never did.. they knew it would only hurt their cause... it seems that we haven't learned the simple fact that a "progressive party" can't win much if it can only garner 20% of the votes in any given election, but it can sure help the other side win more...  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


Mike I'm shocked! (4.00 / 3)
You're normally very sensible and we tend to agree on a lot on things. I don't understand why there is such a lack of clarity for people on this particular topic.

Maybe it's due to the demeanor of some who call for third parties, as they can often come across as shrill, or simply contrarian & eager to pick fights or spread their cynicism.

But to me it's a very basic concept: you give yourself more choices who to vote for. And this is not a binary choice to where you either always vote for one party, or always vote for another, or a binary choice between pressing inside the party's system, or creating a new one altogether. Do all of the above.

For example, right now there is a Dem politician in my state who is considering a move up, and I will probably volunteer for them. At the same time, I've reached out to one of the local unions asking about efforts to bring in the WFP.

It has me scratching my head as to why all of this seems so controversial.

But I do know one thing: if you always do what you've always done...


[ Parent ]
Progressive Block / Splitting equals losing / Splitting part II (4.00 / 4)
     It looks like Bowers agrees with me, about reforming the Dems.
    Many people feel that the Dems today are like the Repubs of about 1970 (see the post "The Crazy Party"). The question is what to do about it.
Here are some of the "solutions" I have heard here, and my view on each:

1) Sit around, whine, moan, and do nothing - I think this is not productive.
2) Vigorously support 3rd parties, especially in close races, so that the Repubs will win, and this will "teach Dems a lesson" - I think this is counterproductive, and is the second worst thing we can do (the worst thing being an actual vote for a Repub.)
3) Blindly rubberstamp everything Obama and the Dems do, and encourage them to take us for granted, so that the liberal Repubs will be coveted swing voters - I think this is not productive.
4) Reform the Dems from within. Primary the DINO's, and give most (or all) support to prog. Dems, and little or none to moderates - Bingo. This is the winning strategy.

    I recently posted a Quick Hit ("Splitting equals losing..."), and it got over 100 replies. Since it was getting too long, I posted a Diary ("Splitting part II..."), which has about 10 replies so far.
    I think that this discussion (what the Dems should be vs. what they are today, and how to empower Progressives, within or outside of the Dem party) is one of the most important discussions we can have. I hope that Bowers posts more about this topic, and I encourage everyone to join me at "Splitting part II...".

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?


[ Parent ]
That's the whole point (4.00 / 2)
The proposal is for the movement to vigorously support third parties while simultaneously working from within the Democratic party...applying pressure from both leverage points to push them towards progressive populist positions. A third party is not the abandoment of pushing for change in the Dems, it's another way of pushing them.

The goal is not "so that Republicans win", as you put it, but so that progressive populist policies win. I think most of the time the Dem candidate in such a situation would reposition themselves to adopt a policy that enjoys intense support among the movement, and often is popular among the public at large.

And keep that in mind: we're not talking about a "20% that will always be a minority" we're talking about policies that are either already widely supported by the public, or ones that could probably win support with the case was actually made.

You don't need to worry about proportional representation or runoff or anything else (althoug fusion would be very handy), what you need to do is get in there and compete. For money, for volunteers, for votes. And dont' sell yourselves short: a third party on the Left doesn't have to be the "Return to the Trees Eco-Party", there is no reason why we can't build a left wing party with mainstream appeal.

You guys remind me of Greider and I think it was Naomi Klein on Charlie Rose a few months ago. Greider was making all these great points about how the Obama administration was doing nothing to reform the financial industry, and Rose asks "So what are you going to do about it?". And they don't answer. And he asks again "What are progressives, what is the Left going to do about it?" And they still don't answer, instead going back to the talking points about the administration was letting everyone down. Finally, after the fourth time Charlie asked the question, Klein just laughed it off, and Greider mumbles something to the effect of "Well, what can we do?".

And at that point if Rahm or Axe were watching, I'm sure they turned off the TV, put down the clicker, rolled over, and had a deep, restful sleep.


[ Parent ]
As usual, you misrepresent what third parties accomplish. (0.00 / 0)
2) Vigorously support 3rd parties, especially in close races, so that the Repubs will win, and this will "teach Dems a lesson" - I think this is counterproductive, and is the second worst thing we can do (the worst thing being an actual vote for a Repub.)

The goal is not so Republicans win.  It's to get recalcitrant Democrats to run leftward and stay there.  What incentive have you got to give right-wing Democrats in changing their behavior in office if you never dare vote against them for fear of the other side winning?  There has GOT to be the risk of losing to the GOP, or else you won't make significant change in the Democratic party makeup.

4) Reform the Dems from within. Primary the DINO's, and give most (or all) support to prog. Dems, and little or none to moderates - Bingo. This is the winning strategy.

No, that's only half of it.  Suppose your primary opponent of choice loses, as Ned Lamont and Ed Fallon did?  By your reasoning, we should then do as we did with Obama and shut up and throw our support behind him, because we just KNOW the other party is so much worse...oh, wait a minute, hasn't the Democratic Party at large spent the better part of three years proving it isn't?  The last time I checked, it has.



[ Parent ]
One long term option for third parties (4.00 / 4)
Would be to push for proportional representation at the state level, for as many states as possible. Not the national level. Let local issues drive people to form different parties and run their state government. Some of those politicians will rise to the top to become governors and members of the US Congress. In theory, you could then form a viable third party around that candidate at a national level. It's also possible these local parties could have affiliates in other states, without becoming a national party. This scenario would take decades to complete most likely.

Other than this scenario, it seems that the only way for new political parties to form is for one of the two parties to fail completely and morph into a new party. The history of national US third parties, since the 1970s at least, has been a complete failure.


[ Parent ]
If you can institute proportional represenation at the state level (4.00 / 1)
why not do it at the national level for that state?  

[ Parent ]
We are really talking bizarre levels of complexity here. (0.00 / 0)
There are probably far better ways to move toward popular democratic control that are better than this. But I support the idea of proportional representation.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
The problem with the thrid party strategy... (4.00 / 1)
...is that we have a winner take all system.  There's a reason why third parties have historically never made much of a dent in the American system...  The system is rigged against them.  If the right wing had a viable third party of their own, and we had ours, maybe it could work, but then only mushy moderates would get elected anyways, 'cos they'd still win the plurality of the vote.  all we'd be doing is taking ourselves out of the game completely.

According to Gallup, liberals make up about 20% of registered voters...  20% isn't going to win you many elections.  Just ask Ross Perot, or the current republicans for that matter...  the only way a third party might win an election is against a republican who is running unopposed... but, if that republican is running unopposed, that usually means a progressive is even less likely to win....

Let's remember that we did have a progressive party, the greens. They were relatively viable, got matching funds and everything... They certainly screwed up a lot of elections, that's for sure... However, not one green party memeber (to my knowledge) has won any election beyond the local level.  Ditto to the Reform party.  Perot got almost 20% of the vote, yet not one elector.  And no reform party candidate won any seat beyond maybe the county level.

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most popular presidents ever, and even HE couldn't win a third party race, and his run ended up splitting the republicans causing the democrat to get elected.

Third party strategy is not the way to go...  Especially considering that the vast majority of democrats are on our side.  The progressive caucus is the largest group in congress, and 38 senators wrote the letter supporting the public option months ago...  

The problem is with the old time, DLC democrats who are so used to being submissive that they can't understand that they don't have to cower in front of Repbulicans anymore.  They either need to be reeducated or need to go... That process will take time, unfortunately.  Since only about 10% of the caucus is a problem, that strategy makes more sense, rather than smearing the entire group of democrats, most of whom are good progressives.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Third parties can be successful (4.00 / 2)
I plan on writing a diary on this, but I can summarize one of my points as being that national third parties fail, but third parties with a strong regional base have a chance of succeeding.

So if you want to build up a third party, my advice is to pick specific states in which to build a third party machine.  One idea would be to take the Vermont Progressive Party (which once tried a third party challenge to then-governor Howard Dean from the left), build it up within the state, and expand it to other states in the region in an incrementalist fashion.  Another strategy would be to build a third party on the backs on the Independence Party in Minnesota and New York, although that wouldn't be a particularly progressive effort.

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


[ Parent ]
Now THAT is what I've been talking about! (0.00 / 0)
Why the hell didn't we get that we've been arguing the same thing?  My only disagreement here is with the incremental approach.  I think we can open up chapters in all fifty states now, rather than slowly branching out.  nevertheless, the overall strategy would be the same: build up from local to state level, then taking on the national.



[ Parent ]
The NY-IP is not a progressive solution (0.00 / 0)
They really are just about being king-makers and influencing the balance of power. Many people end up registering as IndependENCE voters instead of independENT voters.

The Working Families party has a few sister parties in other parts of the country. A far better start to a regional 3rd party.


[ Parent ]
The Socialists (4.00 / 2)
pulled the Dems to the Left in the 30s, and the Libertarians pulled the Republicans to the Right in recent decades.

[ Parent ]
Roosevelt's run wasn't the failure you make it out to be. (0.00 / 0)
Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most popular presidents ever, and even HE couldn't win a third party race, and his run ended up splitting the republicans causing the democrat to get elected.

It did far more than that.  It led many progressive Republicans to switch over to the Democratic Party, causing a major and lasting shift in the two political parties' ideological makeup.  Republicans became more right-wing, while the Democrats began to embrace a progressive platform.  So even though Roosevelt's candidacy failed to win him the election, it did have a powerful effect on the political dynamic.



[ Parent ]
Depends upon the nature and intent of the alternative party (4.00 / 1)
I agree that recent national level attempts at third parties have been far less than effective.

But, it seems to me that the Progressive Block strategy, ultimately, embodies (at least the seed) of a new Progressive Party that is distinct from the current Democratic Party. If the intent is to replace the Democratic Party, that is, reform it to such a degree that it no longer resembles the current rendition in anything but name, then why not change the name, too?

Are we talking ablut breaking the Two Party Tyranny, or playing within it? My sense is that the principles on this site are firmly in line with continuing the two party system. An alternative party created with the intent of replacing the Democratic Party is also in line with the two party system.  

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


[ Parent ]
Personally I like the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. (4.00 / 4)
I think Democrats should call out republicans inside the Democratic party. If Democratic Party voters allowed right wingers to take over control of their party in order "to at least elect somebody" hoping they woul;d be marginally better, then they have a responsibility to start throwing them out.

This not rocket science folks.

This is our party. Just because there are right wingers in the Democratic Party, doesn't mean they own the damn thing.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
The voters cast their votes, true (4.00 / 1)
But the strategy of "at least our candidate is not from the other party" is made possible by the two party system, thus the term "tyranny" is often applied. Let's not forget that these same voters that you claim "allowed right wingers to take over control of their party" are the same one's that are routinely reminded not to "waste" their vote by acting in accordance with their conscience.

I would expect that any new parties that might arise to replace either of the current mainstream parties, lacking any reform of the two party structure, would likely adopt such campaign tactics in very short order.


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


[ Parent ]
Yes its difficult. yes analysis isnt just glancing and guessing. (4.00 / 2)
Yes its going to take real work form people deciding that policts and civics and citizenship is part of who they are, and nit just a thing you do every four years.

Republicans say: WE run the Planet!!! Get out of the WAY!!! ARRGHH we like violence! GOD IS ON OUR SIDE!!!!!! Money Talks! LOck them UP Tap their Phones!

Democrats say; This is too hard, do I have to vote again? We have to keep track of our candidates after we elect them? Why do I have to be responsible for the consequences of my actions? Isn't anger against 'bad people' enough, do I really have to attend meetings and make agreements with other people too?

Spitball I am not directing this at you as a moral failure on your part at all. I am saying that we already have a Party of African Americans, Women, workers, peace activists and environmentalists and the LGBT communittees to name just a few. They have worked to create reform and control it for decades. Conservatives have control of some sections, they need to be reminded who they represent, and what they were sent to do, or they need to get out of the way.

On reforming the 'two party' system: there are many mnay models of what is reffered to as two party all across the country. I dont think there are two systems exactly the same in any state. BUT, if we cant trust some self serving jackholes to vote on a program to let people see doctors when they have a heart attack, why the hell would they reliably build a "new" system to change way votes are counted, policies enacted and transparency guaranteed?

Lets remove the asshats without sense or spine first, lets take back our party first.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
I'm just raising the questions (4.00 / 2)
that I feel need to be asked with respect to these issues. I appreciate your response and your calm demeanor.

I can get behind the idea of working on the Democratic Party, but I think some systemic reforms to the voting mechanisms might also be considered simultaneously. Ultimately, I'm one who would prefer a multi-party system; a functional multi-party system. To that end, it has become obvious that we need to change the voting mechanisms to facilitate such an advance in our political system.

The question is whether the "brand loyalty" of the Democratic Party name is worth trading for all the baggage and inertia of those on the right-wing of the party.


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


[ Parent ]
Who benefits from reforms? (0.00 / 0)
You need at least some non-progressives to buy into the idea of electoral reform.  One avenue I see is finding some embittered social conservatives and selling them on the idea that a multi-party system will allow them to play a role similar to religious parties like Shas in Israel (and I actually believe that a functional multi-party system will potentially allow that to occur).

To get to that multi-party system, I think that you will also have to consider re-opening concepts found in the Bill of Rights to democratic debate and allowing them to be re-written with more precise language that locks down meaning and allows less room for interpretation.

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


[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
Start with electoral reform, fusion, IRV, opt-out registration mechanisms, among other changes that facilitate alternative candidates. Push into EC reform or elimination, let the judicial dust settle from the law suits and such. Short term tactic/goals.

Maybe that will till up the ground for a multi-party system to be attained. Its a long term goal.


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


[ Parent ]
They seem to own the damn thing... (4.00 / 3)
...'cos a handful in the Senate can use their clout to block the will of the vast majority of Democrats.  They are not a majority, however... they are a small minority.  Tarring and feathering the whole party 'cos of a few bad apples is unfair and counterproductive.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
It isn't just a few bad apples. (0.00 / 0)
When you look at the makeup of Congressional Democrats, the right-wingers keep outnumbering the progressives - and they do it with the help of party leaders, who are very right-wing and who work to increase, not mitigate or decrease, their numbers in the party.

We've been getting our butts kicked in this fight for years.  Frankly, short of forming a third party with the aim of transforming Democrats, I don't see how we're going to survive as a movement.



[ Parent ]
They don't own it? (0.00 / 0)
Unless I missed something, it looks like corporations and their right-wing puppets in both major parties do own (most of) the Democrats.



[ Parent ]
there's a way of analyzing it that's not a tantrum (4.00 / 4)
What is a primary?  It is a threat on someone's political power.  It forces the more powerful candidate, win or lose, to shift their position and be accountable to a different part of the base.

What is a third party?  It is a threat on someone's political power.  It forces the more powerful candidate, win or lose, to shift their position and be accountable to a different part of the base.

And if they don't end up being accountable - or their whole party doesn't - it will die - and if they do end up being accountable - it means they have to take on parts of the agenda and the peoplw WITHIN their party that agree with the 3rd party people will be strengthened - in this case progressives within the Democratic Party.

Whether you supoprt a third party approach or a Democratic Party approach or a combination or something else, it is necessary to acknowledge that the u.s. political system conssitently and imo structurally produces a two-party system (which has been studied and even been given a name by political scientists - duverger's law).  If I can acknowledge that, surely someone who doesn't support third parties can acknowledge that there are little things, medium size things, large things that do or can come of them and consider thoguhtfully and analyse whether history moves even with structural constraints, that structural constraints can be altered through things like fusion voting and other things, and that allowing the dmeocratic establishment to take your votes and your mobilizing power for granted is a recipe for slower and more limited change.

So let us stop fighting and taunting each other childishly and rehasing the 2000 election and admit there is poor thinking and good thinking on both sides of the outside/inside divide.  All we're talking abotu is waht the uses and risks of an alternate political structure in a system designed for two parties will produce - and it should be left at that so that progressives and radicals can continue to work together rather than by being divided by the logic of the two-party system.


[ Parent ]
The third party approach fails... (4.00 / 1)
...'cos all it does is push Democrats to the right.  If they lose 5% of their votes to the greens, they aren't going to verge left to alienate the moderates (who make up the vast majority of the electorate)... instead they will tack right to pick up conservative independents, who are easier to please than liberals.

We've done the green party thing... It was a viable party with matching funds and everything... it's only made things worse...  A "progressive" party will never attract more than the minority of the vote.

Primaries are a different story 'cos in most cases, the primary winner cannot run again... so, the candidate HAS to veer left in order to win.  But, third party?  All that does is push candidates to the right... we've seen this strategy fail time and time again.

There are a few exceptions to the rule.... For example, a green party challenge to Blanche Lincoln might be beneficial ('cos she can't go further rightward, and the election will be close), but in most cases third party= fail.

It's the nature of our winner take all system...  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
We have to do the third party for more than (2.00 / 2)
one cycle. If they tack more to the right over time the third party will just pick up more and more votes.  No problem.  The dems are so pathetic  I have absolutely nothing to lose anymore.

[ Parent ]
But, the third party will never pick up enough votes to win... (4.00 / 1)
...outright, and the conservative will win the plurality of the votes every time...

This is the situation in Canada, were the NDP and the liberals split the votes which gives a complete free ride to the conservatives who don't represent the majority in any way, yet have complete control over the parliament as a result of vote splitting amongst the more progressive voters.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
You aren't psychic (4.00 / 1)
my bet is the conservatives win a couple of terms create a bad reaction because of kooks like Palinm, then the progressives will have a shot!

[ Parent ]
Isn't that what Ralph Nader said? (4.00 / 2)
Look at how it's worked out... we got Bush and the disaster that followed... No thanks!  It's not worth the suffering just to have to clean up afterwards...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
I believe we would have gotten the war anyway (2.00 / 2)
look at the recent war supplemental.  Dems loved it!

[ Parent ]
We probably wouldn't have gotten the Iraq War (4.00 / 2)
We would have gotten an invasion of Afghanistan, which I supported.  Hell, even lefty heroes Sanders and Kucinich voted for an authorization of force with Barbara Lee as the only nay vote in either house.

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

[ Parent ]
Don't fool yourself (4.00 / 1)
Gore's mentor was Martin Peretz.

He only split from him, after retiring from politics.


[ Parent ]
Not necessarily (4.00 / 1)
Although, some might conclude that the more recent examples of third parties did precisely what you claim.

An alternative party that is significantly to the left of the current Democratic Party (and, thereby more reflective of the populace according to many diaries I read here and elsewhere) might actually work to move the political spectrum to the left.

Just because the movement to the right was somewhat gradual and incremental, does not mean that the only way "back" is via the same mechanism. If the "centrist" Democratic Party dissolves and the left re-forms around a new "Progressive Party" the change might occur sooner, rather than later.

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


[ Parent ]
The more likely scenerio (4.00 / 1)
is the the dems become the new conservatives, and the republicans the new dixiecrats desolving after a few terms, with more northern emmigration south.

[ Parent ]
When did they have matching funds? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
exactly (0.00 / 0)
the Greens never got matching funds, because they never broke the 5% national threshold, which is Nader's real failure in 2000, let alone helping Bush get "elected."

The Perot/Reform party qualified for matching funds in 92 and 96, and lost it after their own dismal showing in 2000.

Perot actually placed 2nd in Maine (beating HW Bush and the GOP into 3rd). Honestly, if Perot hadn't pulled his kooky "I'm out, I'm in again" nonsense in 92, he would've absolutely won EVs, and possibly been a king-maker.


[ Parent ]
At first glance, I read this as "2000 years of GOP"... (0.00 / 0)
..and thought "damn, those US right wingers reached a new level of insanity! They're even worse than German Nazis. Those madmen only longed for a 1000 year Reich..."

Ok, thank god this isn't true, but I guess I really need some glasses...

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter


What 60 did (4.00 / 5)
We seem to have stopped or at least slowed the madness of Republican extremism.  That is a lot but it certainly is not enough.  Somebody ought to start discouraging Bayh from heading hard right and starting a group in the Senate aimed at doing the same.  Instead Obama praises him and we have Bayh's voting getting noticeably worse.

We don't need ten more Evan Bayhs.  We used to have a name for Evan Bayhs, Republicans.  Now that the Republicans have moved way right we are encouraging recreating the old Republican Party as a wing of the Democratic Party.  Bad move.  Ronald Reagan proved that moderation does not attract voters.  Confidence attracts voters.


The Wall: Now you see it, now you don't. (3.00 / 4)
If we had elected a weak, unprincipled con-man in 1932, instead of FDR, then somebody like Ezra Klein would have claimed that real reform was impossible, nothing can get through the Wall, and so on.

"But now America is so conservative," they say, as if FDR had inherited a progressive country which only accidentally elected Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover immediately before Roosevelt. Those guys make Reagan look like Ralph Nader!

In 2008 we elected a weak, unprincipled con-man who never had a program except getting himself elected, and the liberal blogosphere never stopped cheering for that hypocritical son-of-a-bitch until he had already broken the Treasury with $14 trillion in commitments which benefit nobody except criminal bankers, and...

Wasn't that radical enough for Ezra Klein?

When it comes to the biggest give-away in the history of the universe...

There is no Wall!

When it comes to the biggest upward transfer of wealth in the history of the universe...

There is no Wall!

But when it comes to reasonable environmental and financial regulation...

Nothing can breach the Wall!


No misunderstanding pls, I don't like this comment very much... (4.00 / 2)
..but rated it 4 to counter the abusive TRing by Christan_Dem_NY. Come on, man this isn't Dkos here, TRing is only for hiding troll comments or personal insults! No rating wars, pls.

(Uh, retaliating against abusers is an exception, of course.  Right, Kowalski?)

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter


[ Parent ]
did I "mis-Troll"? / my apologies (4.00 / 1)
   I thought that a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down" were equally valid responses to each post.
  But if mild approval is enough for a Recommend, and only serious Trolling or harsh personal insults merit a Troll rating, then I have indeed over-used the Troll rating.
  I apologize, and I will not be so quick to Troll-rate in the future. (By the way, is there a guide posted here about Troll ratings and so on? I don't want to unknowingly break any other rules...)

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

[ Parent ]
No big deal. Other sites have a similar feature, but use it differently... (0.00 / 0)
..and this leads to misunderstandings every now and then (this isn't a up or down vote like at, say, Rawstory). Here at OpenLeft, zero rating results in hiding a comment (two zero rates are enough to flag a posting "hidden", and so it is only used for trolls spamming the thread, personal insults, and spammers trying to exploit the discussion forums by placing commercial links there. If I understand the engine correctly, hiding will also result in making the comment invisible for web robots, excluding it from google searches.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
As for the rules, you'll find them in the "OpenLeft User Manual"... (0.00 / 0)
..on the right side:
"If you find a comment that is particularly inciteful, or you find a comment that is breaking the rules of OpenLeft, you can alternately "Recommend" the comment to others as something worth reading, or "Troll" a comment that breaks the rules."

However, the only rule that applies to deciding whether a comment is "trollish" or not is "be excellent to each other". Well, maybe that's not quite explicit enough, and imho it leads to totally unncessary discussions. But the general consensus among regular users about the rules regarding TRing a comment are what I outlined in my comment above (Trolls, insults, commercial links), so it's a good idea to apply these.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter


[ Parent ]
Glass house-owner, I see. (0.00 / 0)
You had no problem abusing the rating system to hide a comment from someone whose post you couldn't counter.  Now all of a sudden you're all about disparaging the very same Kos-like behavior you were engaging in.  I up-rated your comment in case some horse's you-know-what decides to do likewise to you, but it's the depth of hypocrisy to complain about ratings abuse when you have done it yourself.



[ Parent ]
Well, Michael, that's why I addressed that issue in my comment. (0.00 / 0)
And sry for getting your name wrong. Seriously, no insult intended, I really have a bad memory for names and people.

Ok, back to topic, as I stated repeatedly in that heated thread, I applied a "tit for tat" strategy. Since we can't rely on admins or mods here to nib such petty issues like TR abuse in the bud (Chris simply has more important things to do), I responded to you, zero rating me for pointing out a commercial link spammer, in the same kind. However, that this became a rating war showed me that this strategy doesn't work in such cases, either. But still, it's a fact you started this. I only TRed a commercial link spammer, not you.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter


[ Parent ]
Ah, but you did TR me. (0.00 / 0)
For one thing, rather than offer any proof other than your objection to his signature link, you decided the poster was a commercial link spammer.  His comment was on-topic and did not violate the rules of the web site.  You knew this for a fact.  You could have asked the person to remove the link, or asked an administrator to edit out the link or some other measure.  But you just went right ahead with the TR and didn't even bother addressing what the guy said.  That's why I did what I did.  YOU chose to get into a tit-for-tat rating battle.



[ Parent ]
I adressed these points long ago (0.00 / 0)
You won't listen. Renewing that discussion is useless.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
You lied a while ago. (0.00 / 1)
You abused the rating system.  This is fact.  But you are right about one thing: arguing back and forth like this is pointless because you won't own up to your misbehavior.



[ Parent ]
En Bloc! Good idea! (0.00 / 0)
.
We also need to target the DINO's as well as the Repukelickin's in 2010 & 2012. The long-term goal has to be to get corporate money and corporatist puppets out of Washington. The only way to do that is to keep a lot more "ordinary" citizens involved full-time. With the Internet, we can do that.

But we also have to start taking down these right-wing terrorists, like Michael "Savage" Weiner. Intimidation and violence have no place in this picture.

As to Romney's chances, assuming every other possible Repuke candidate shoots himself or herself in the foot between now and 2012, which seems likely... Romney's people would have to stop referring to Christians as "gentiles," and quit meddling in other States political affairs. But that ain't gonna happen. I predict that Mittsy and Ron Paul and Huckleberry will fight for control of the Libertarians as the Puke's continue to self-destruct. As a brand, it's an Edsel, not a Lincoln, any more.
.


calculations of "GDP" (0.00 / 0)
are highly unreliable for many countries even today - even industrialised countries are not able to include the informal/shadow economy (drug trade, etc.) in many cases.  And that's setting aside the political objections of not including domestic work, etc.  So to go back in time and do it for any place like 'India' or 'China' that is the name of a modern state but not a political entity before, say, the 18th or 19th century is almost absurd in terms of the lack of reliable data, the limitations of the term, etc.  It's barely possible to do today - as the demonstration of the need for PPP shows.

PPP is not ridiculous imo, but it is loaded, like everything else.  Statistics are political too, just like terms like 'free trade' (free trade of hwat? just capital?).

On a side note, Saying India as the collection of people who livedi n the geographic area had more ecnomic activity than Britain in 1820, though much of both areas were under the control of British society/multinationals/politics, is not totally absurd.  The silver was still flowing into India until about the early 19th century when it reversed.  People underestimate what the effects of colonialism were - when the British first start trading in India they had to give silver because they didn't have much else to offer :)  That changed when the EI Company and then the Crown fundamnetally distorted India's economy (see, for example, 'The Development of Underdevelopment'

But like I said above, these statements are largely speculative and heavily loaded in terms of your preconceptions and ideology.  Much like GDP :)


What would LBJ both as Majority Leader and President have done with 60 (D)Senators? (4.00 / 6)
Right now there is no willingness for a fight....no line in the sand....no urgency in what passes for the 'leadership' in the Democratic Party...and it pains me to write that.

So what's the real problem? (4.00 / 2)
Is the real problem the conservative Dems or the Senate leadership (Reid)? Take healthcare: we only need 50 votes and Joe Biden to break the tie. We have 60 Democrats in the chamber. It's been pretty clear for a while that the usual suspects (Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, etc.) would give us trouble vis-a-vis the public option but the leadership doesn't seem to have done its job in locking down as many votes as possible for the president's plan. Of course we should primary DINOs but until we have leadership with some guts, I don't think much will change.

As for what LBJ would do as majority leader with 60 votes? It makes me too depressed wishing, "If only..." to answer that question.


[ Parent ]
Well personally I aint contributiong to Reid's reelection (0.00 / 0)
An there are others whose disgust with the lack of spine might even work to defeat him.

Histrionics is not progressive, thinking and planning and working hard is progressive.

Here's a story about the Senate we want, and not the one we're given:

Carolyn Maloney Vows To Challenge Gillibrand In 2010 Senate Race

....Trippi & Associates, ...has been hired by Maloney to serve as a chief strategist. (lately of John Edwards' and Dean's Presidential campaigns ed.)

Gillibrand then was a little-known congresswoman from upstate New York, first elected to the House in 2006. The appointment stewed resentment among others who considered her views on guns and immigration not liberal enough.

Since then, two potential contenders _ Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn McCarthy _ have opted out.

Maloney, 61, who represents Manhattan's Upper East Side, declined to do so, even after a phone call from Vice President Joe Biden. President Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has also expressed White House support for Gillibrand.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Maloney with a slight edge over Gillibrand among registered New York Democrats.

I would love more opinions on this challenge. But the point is, we can make real change not throwing away the bathtub because the baby is still far too covered in what babies get covered in.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
very different party coalitions back then (4.00 / 1)
You just don't have very many Dixiecrats or Rockefeller Republicans anymore.  But they played off of each other pretty frequently back then.

[ Parent ]
Sanders QH seems like an opening (4.00 / 7)
There's a Quick Hit up about Sen. Sanders creating a Coalition of the Unwilling. Sounds like it might be a good start for creating a Progressive Block in the Senate. Unwilling to sell out, unwilling to bend over, and so on.

The real problem in the Senate, IMHO, is less its unrepresentative structure and more the failure of leadership on Reid's part. The Senate structure exists to calm the passions of the House. But a good Senate Majority leader like LBJ can get work done. Reid can't. Or, perhaps to be more precise, Reid's political views prevent him from doing the right thing on many issues. But I also think the failure to stand up for anything is a personality defect on his part. He's a wimp, period.

Perhaps everyone's plans for a Progressive Block should include figuring out how to replace Reid.


Thats an excellent point. (0.00 / 0)
And I agree. Not helping him through his apparently very difficult re-election campaign in Nevada might the ugly way to let him go down. I don't think primarying him is a viable task at this point or even ever, but staying home would be ugly.

At this point, before the drive to unseat a democrat, the leadership of the party might want to make him less of a target to the democratic heart of the democratic party, before the only solution is losing a seat to a republican.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Primarying Reid would be impossible... (0.00 / 0)
He owns the entire party establishment down there... You'd have to find an independent millionaire to do it (ala Lamont)... Any suggestions?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
so you don't actually support primaries then (4.00 / 2)
you tell us we can't have a third party because we should change the dems through primaries, then tell us we can't have primaries.  This is the mind fuck that is making me look elsewhere.  

[ Parent ]
Status Quo (4.00 / 1)
By any means necessary.

Don't rock the boat until you are told to do so.

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


[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 1)
I would love to primary Reid!  What I'm saying is that finding a candidate is damn near impossible, 'cos any party member in Nevada who would try to do it would be blacklisted to oblivion.  Reid may be a loser in the Senate, but he runs the Nevada Democratic Party like a dictatorship....

How did you interpret this as not wanting to primary him?  I just was stating the reality--no Nevada democrat who goes against Reid will see the light of day again.  In order to primary Reid, it will have to be an independent insider.  If you have any ideas about who to run, I'm all ears!  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
then why do you say they are the answer (4.00 / 1)
if you don't believe they are possible than tell the truth and admit the Democratic party is a hopeless place for the progressives!  We need a new party!

Or perhaps you just like centrism an it doesn't bother you like me.


[ Parent ]
Go after his family (4.00 / 2)
Rory Reid, who was Hillary Clinton's state campaign chairman in Nevada, is supposedly showing interest in running for governor in 2010.  Take a swipe at Reid indirectly by hurting his son politically and make sure he knows that it has nothing to do with the son's politics and everything to do with spite for the father.

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

[ Parent ]
Primary him and then vote independent if or when he wins. (0.00 / 0)
Reid should face a primary challenge if for no other reason than it would weaken him going into the general election.  That boy has been an utter disaster as Senate Capitulation Leader.  We need someone in there willing to fight the GOP, not meekly cave in at every opportunity while refusing to keep discipline in his own party.  For how worthless Reid is, we might as well have a Republican in there, but maybe a primary challenge from the left and the threat of total abandonment in the general will scare him enough that he'll pull his head out of his rear end for a moment or two.



[ Parent ]
I would just like to point out that you are specificaly using a third party (4.00 / 1)
candidate as wedge to defeat a sitting Democrat. Not to win of course, but just make sure the democrat doesn't win.

I want more better democrats.

I see no reason, and little obvious evidence hereabouts, that a group of people forming a third party wouldn't go the way of the Reform Party, before or after it sank into obscurity after Buchanan used storm trooper tactics to take it over.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
And I would point out the following: (0.00 / 0)
Reid is a Republican who pretends to be a Democrat - he is that worthless as one.  What's more, it's not as though such as he cannot be swayed by a primary challenge followed by abandonment in the general if he doesn't change his tune.  Remember Donna Edwards in Maryland?  Her primary victory led Leonard Boswell in Iowa to jump on board impeachment efforts last year.  That wasn't anything to sneeze at.  Hold no illusions about Reid and the rest of the right-wingers in the Democratic Party.  If we don't put the fear of electoral defeat in them, they'll keep behaving like Republicans - and what's the point of having a Democrat in office when he legislates or governs like a far right GOPher?  At least with the method we propose, there's the chance of getting someone we don't have to constantly pressure and use tough political tactics against all the time.



[ Parent ]
I support primaries, I support pressuring Dems, I support running ads on TV (0.00 / 0)
to let people know what policies we don't support about sitting Dems too. I support castigating the entire dog caucus, and letting voters know the reason we aren't moving fast enough is because of spineless and conservative Dems holding us in the drive for the change we promised them.

All of it to make the Democratic Party the party of working Americans, women, latinos, African Americans, the party of people who want single payer healthcare and environmentalists, and the party of peace activists and scientists and daycare workers. The democratic party has done almost everything I love about this amazing country, and it has the power and promise to do the same and more again.

Its my Democratic Party and you will have to take it from me out of my cold dead fingers.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
But you have to have a fallback plan. (0.00 / 0)
If or when such methods fail within the party, we have to use them outside it to keep the pressure on.  That's all we can do with third parties at this point.  Never leave yourself with insufficient options.



[ Parent ]
When I see you primary each and everyone of the bluedogs (4.00 / 1)
I'll take this strategy seriously chris.  All I know is progressives have been talking about this forever and and never comes to anything.  So I have tired of hearing about primaries that never happen.  In the meantime, I hope sanders and Sheehan get together for a progressive party, and take on each and every last bluedog in the general election since they appear to be no different from the republicans.  I know I like most green party members, because I actually share most of their philosophy.  I only like maybe one forth of the kossacks, because they are like talking to republicans.

You can't primary all of the Blue Dogs effectively (0.00 / 0)
Some of them are very popular in their districts.  For example, the only way that Collin Peterson is leaving his seat involuntarily is in a body bag.

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

[ Parent ]
then don't talk to me about primaries again (4.00 / 1)
I am better represented by a progressive party!

[ Parent ]
You won't be represented at all... (4.00 / 2)
...by a third party 'cos they will never win an election, so you simply won't be represented at all.

Voting third party is no different than staying home...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
I am not represented at all now (4.00 / 1)
what is the difference.  I might as well have stayed home last election for all the dems are accomplishing.

[ Parent ]
That's your perogative... (4.00 / 2)
...but, to say the dems are not a significant improvement over Bush is not seeing the forest for the trees...

People came into the election with false expectations...  There are still many "old" dems as part of the majority that will need to be weeded out or re-educated.  Most of the party is good, but the few bad apples spoil the bunch.

Listen, when the republicans took over congress in 1994, there were a significant amount of moderates in their caucus.  Their senate killed a lot of reactionary bills coming from the house.  In time, they purged the moderates out, and they got a lockstep party in the Bush era.  These things take time, and people are way too impatient...  It took the christian right 20 years to finally get the influence they wanted.  We've only been doing this for 5.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
The new party are an ideological one (4.00 / 1)
so we'll only run against the shitty dems.  It will make the transition of the dems go much quicker.  Since as you admit it is not possible to primary Reid because the dem party in Nevada is so stalinst.  It is better to take him out with an independent or third party.

[ Parent ]
What improvement? (0.00 / 0)
Torture is still being carried out.  Illegal spying on Americans goes on unabated, with Obama actually exceeding the right-wing extremism of Bush on that one.  No prosecutions are in sight for the perpetrators of these and other crimes.  Obama put in Ken Salazar, an anti-environmentalist, at the Interior Department and handed Treasury (among others) over to Wall Street.  The Democrats are now the biggest obstacle to single-payer and badly needed environmental protections and regulations, flat out stating that they refuse to allow them because it would hurt big business.  Untried, uncharged prisoners still languish in Gitmo, with no hope of due process.  Education for historically Black colleges is being cut.  The illegal occupation of Iraq continues, albeit with cosmetic changes (we still have soldiers and mercenaries in country, don't forget).  The war in Afghanistan has been expanded into Pakistan.  Obama had his Injustice Department all but call gays who want to marry pedophiles and incestuous in defending an unjust and probably unconstitutional law forbidding them from marrying.  But hey, at least we have a law now that says women can sue for more equal pay - with, of course, the likelihood that even if women are able to get a ruling in their favor that Obama and the Democrats will ignore it.

That's just off the top of my head.  How are the Democrats better?



[ Parent ]
How do you know if you never seriously try? (0.00 / 0)
And I'm equally sick of the common left-wing response of threatening to vote for a third-party. Yeah, that has proven sooooo effective.

It's not as if strong third parties have never made a significant difference in political trends.  We have the 1860, 1912, 1992, and 1996 presidential elections as proof that, when implemented, third parties can and do change political landscapes.  If you always dismiss the use of strong third parties as an effective means to alter the political dynamic, then what else do you propose besides having progressives in Congress do what amounts to throwing organized temper tantrums until they get their way?  That may gain us some results, but not nearly enough, and there is a very real danger that it could backfire - especially considering that Rahm Emanuel and other Democratic Party leaders have spent their careers and especially the last eight years actively campaigning to unseat progressive members of the party so as to replace them with right-wingers.

The point is that the current strategy isn't getting us the results we need and what we have that is effective cannot stand unsupported by other methods for very long.  We have to find some way of sending the message to Democrats that their days in power are numbered if they continue to forsake the base.  The best way to do that is to organize around a viable third party.  it's a long term strategy, to be sure, but it's worth trying.  If it fails, we can look for more effective means, but at this point I really don't see any.



Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search