I Think Progressive Democrats of America (4.00 / 4)

has real potential to be reckoned with, if everyone on the liberal blogosphere joined the organization.  Other than Paul touting their promise, I do read much about them on this site or that many other sites advocating to join them.
    Currently, PDA is struggling, somewhat, for financing: due to a lack of "sustainers". That said, if PDA reaches out to the netroots and vice-versa, it could be a potent outside, inside organization.
     Why isn't there more attention given to PDA? One problem that I noticed:  thereseems to be a "purity" factor from some PDA members, pertaininng to how progressive other progressives really are. That said, I think with more communication PDA--joining some of the old w/ the new--could have a bigger and more influential organization.  

---

by: Jason Cataldi @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 05:01:04 AM UTC

A brief progressive primer (4.00 / 7)

Whatever ideas the Democrats have will be the ones we bring to it; it has none of its own.

If there's such a thing as one essential truth which points reliably to a better future, this has to be it.

It's not as simple as it sounds; nothing political ever is. But nothing which contradicts this single sentence in any fundamental way is worth pursuing. Who are we? What do we want? Why? Anyone who thinks that these questions are unimportant isn't part of the solution, he's part of the problem. It can't be said often enough; if you want to engage people you have to know something about them, you have to see them as potential partners in a common cause, and whatever you ask of them has to be relevant to them as well as to you.

It isn't as though there aren't plenty of issues everywhere you look which people need help in resolving. There's a lot to be learned, and a lot to be done, but there's no point in even beginning unless you're committed to telling the truth to yourself as well as to those you want to join you.

It's absurdly simple at its core, but very difficult in practice: trust the people, and the people may trust you. If they don't, it says as much about you, as about them. You absolutely cannot parachute into people's lives with a catechism and a bullhorn, stir them up, and then go on about your life, if your life is defined as something separate from your acts. That's the hard part. Once you're in, you're in. What you do is your life, so think before you do it.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 07:56:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very True (4.00 / 3)

Who are we? What do we want? Why? Anyone who thinks that these questions are unimportant isn't part of the solution, he's part of the problem. It can't be said often enough; if you want to engage people you have to know something about them, you have to see them as potential partners in a common cause, and whatever you ask of them has to be relevant to them as well as to you.

I always find it strange how so much netroots attention goes to issues of strategy and the political game (who's up and who's down) or to policy details, with less attention to these fundamental question. It's so frustrating to hear Democratic officials who have trouble using progressive language even as they try to see progressive policies (instead focusing on things like costs.) But it's even more frustrating to see the same problems among non-elites. The connections between various progressive positions in particular seem underdeveloped and rarely discussed.

It's time to stop complaining that voters are not receptive enough Democratic or progressive messages and start rethinking how to connect with people where they are, as they are.

If the netroots is to become anything more, questions about who we are and why we are here must be paramount. Democratic elites have proven themselves either unwilling, or incapable, or both, of having that conversation.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:06:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A sad anecdote (4.00 / 3)

I'm on the Candidate Search Committee for my county Democratic party. Recently, the party Vice-Chair sent out an e-mail to the members of the committee, announcing that a member of the committee (anonymous member, that is) had complained to her that we spent too much time discussing issues. It was unclear whether or not the Vice-Chair was asking us to shape up, but my first thought was Fuck these morons, and fuck the party that breeds them.

The irony, you understand, is that we have the unenviable task of asking talented young Democrats to run for state legislative positions for which campaigns which will cost a minimum of $100K, and which haven't been held by a Democrat since before they were born.

If you're looking for crazy, you don't have to look far these days -- certainly not all the way to Glenn Beck.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:21:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Theseare the questions I've been working on (4.00 / 5)

Talking to Democrats, I run into policy wonks who know everything there is to know about things like tax policy or health insurance, and electoral wonks who know the county-by-county results for the last thirty years. And they're all much better than I am at those things (though I think that the electoral wonks have been outwonked by the Republicans since 1980). And many of them (not all and maybe not most) have the roiught goals, more or less.

But they fall down horribly where the rubber meets the road -- where policy meets campaigning, where the citizen lives, where the campaign reaches him, where the policy affects him, and how he responds to the policy-campaign cluster.

Part of the failure is the result of simple corruption, when actual policy cannot be campaigned on and must be obscured. Part of it is the (sometimes secret) principled conservativism of some  Democratic bigwigs, who would rather lose than move to the left. And it's not easy to distinguish these two causes.

But I'm convinced that there are other factors: a philosophy of government as manipulation, the fear of the electorate, a rather stiff, unventuresome way of dealing with fast-moving situations, a tendency to assume the fixity of electoral categories rather than to try to change peoples' minds.

Obviously I'm not addressing the principled neocons and neolibs in the Democratic Party. I'm addressing the cosiderable population of Democratic activists, low-level pros,  and rank and file who have bought into the neo-con / neo-lib strategy by mistake. I continually run into despairing left-liberal Democrats who remain shackled by what they think of as a sophisticated view of politics, but which I think of as fatal confusion.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:32:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When it boils down to it (4.00 / 6)

organizing, which is what we are talking about here, is scary. It means putting yourself on the line in a deeply personal way that most forms of middle class activism do not. One union organizer close to me always reminds people that overcoming fear is the key to being an organizer and organizing others. For many, I suspect, that "sophisticated" view is a smokescreen to avoid making the leap.

That's one reason I'm so glad you've brought this project here. The temptation is to focus our energies on discussing the actions of people with great power who we have little contact with - the president being the most obvious example. I don't doubt there is a role for that, but other regular people can be engaged in productive ways that elites cannot. We need a whole lot more of the latter.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:43:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That finger points at me (4.00 / 3)

In my everyday life and out in public I keep politics out of it except with people I know pretty well. People generally know what I think and I'll wear a button at election time, but I don't seek out controversy.

To a certain extent I think that liberals and progressives have been physically intimidated by the possibility of meeting hard-core wingers. This particular area has a very wide range of opinion, from hardcore liberals to hardcore dittoheads. It averages out as slightly conservative 55/45 R/D.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:49:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

organizing (4.00 / 2)

What worked for me whial union organizing, was to view the person I intended to persuade as a bigger victim than me. This allows the organizer to take the slander and insults (originated by lieing right wing employeers and employeer groups and media) as just another example of effective brainwashing. If the organizer can remember: this is just further proof that the intended convert needs help, it is easier to have compassion.

And really, organizing him/her does help him/her as much as us. The political problem effects ALL of us lower 90% to our detriment.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 17:39:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read something useful, (4.00 / 2)

I don't remember where (maybe here?) and that is "there is no such thing as 'the people' there is only people."

Focussing on the real person standing in front of us, like you have described here, is the only way to go.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 18:31:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Glenn Smith has a piece (0.00 / 0)

related to this point on FDL today - Politics with a Human Face.

It's worth a look.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 18:54:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regular updates from (4.00 / 1)

PDA, and Democracy for American, the Working Families Party or similar groups about efforts to organize within at the local level would be a great use of the real estate on this blog.  There is a lot more promise for change here than with pressuring presidents directly - which tends to get so much attention.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:34:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've become increasingly interested in fusion (4.00 / 4)

Sirota's chapter on the Working Families Party in The Uprising suggests some real possibilities. While most states bar fusion right now, there are a few besides NY that don't, and the WFP is working on building in those states - CT (already launched), DE, SC, and OR. I favor fusion as an electoral reform over IRV - which I think will provide less of a signal of where voters are and has less opportunity for third parties to pressure the Democrats.

As for taking over the Democratic Party at the state or local level, I think that is very important. But I suspect primaries are only part of it. A lot of what would need to be done would be organizing to get people involved in the party apparatus. That said, I haven't seen much on the nuts and bolts about how to go about doing that. (Conservatives have done it in the Republican Party, both around the time of Goldwater and more recently.)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 05:16:45 AM UTC

A third party (0.00 / 0)

The way the electorial college works effectively inhibits third party attempts in presidential politics.  In national politics however third parties seem to be a norm among parlimentary governments.  

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

---

by: Money Man @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 05:22:43 AM UTC

You make it all sound so clear: (4.00 / 6)

First of all, I'm not proposing an electoral strategy for the national Democrats;  I'm proposing that populists take over the Democratic Party and govern in a progressive / populist way. Second, if there's a voting demographic to target, it would be discouraged non-voters, not socially conservative white people.

That's what the conservatives did to the Republican Party, with Evangelicals, isn't it? Identify a cache of people who aren't voting, convince them to vote for you, then leverage those votes into control of the Party.

There's no reason it wouldn't work.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 10:25:04 AM UTC

Uh, Sadie, and we know the great results that came from it. (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, that sure moved the GOP into a stronger position! Did I miss the irony here???

---

by: Gray @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 10:29:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because their ideas are crap. (4.00 / 6)

Their values are crap. Ours are not.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 10:39:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, sure, but imho that's why it's not a good example. (0.00 / 0)

Not much that can be learned from the GOP now. They can only serve as a negative example.  

---

by: Gray @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 10:50:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree. (4.00 / 9)

Power is value neutral, it's what you do with it that counts.

The Conservatives used the GOP as a vehicle to take over our country. Progressives can use the Democratic Party the same way.

We just have to learn to see the Party the way John Emerson is presenting it here -- as a piece of territory, to be seized.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 11:27:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Republicans transformed America (4.00 / 2)

No irony.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 11:11:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reason (4.00 / 1)

The Republicans took control of the terms of debate.  Even when their crappy ideas had little popular backing, the country was forced to talk about the privatization of Social Security rather than, say, universal health care for children or energy independence.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are still controlling the terms of debate even from a deep minority position.  We should be talking about single payer for all rather than triggers and certainly not about Baucus Care with its taxes and fines and Medicare cuts.

At some point, this whole farce will radicalize a large share of the population and then maybe the Versailles Democrats and "conservative" Republicans will be shoved aside for a few years.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 18:44:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surely it did (4.00 / 4)

The Republican Party still wields tremendous influence, despite its tiny minority and shrinking share of the electorate. The power they wield today rivals the power Democrats wield.  One of the reasons they held on so long despite their unpopular political positions was a rather significant gap in voter perceptions of whether the parties stood for something - Republicans outperformed Democrats on this score for a long time, and this hurt Democratic chances.  

The process we are talking about, mind you, began in the 1960s, which led the Republican Party to be the dominate one at the presidential level despite being the minority party among voters.

They are no doubt at a low point of power today, having taken the idea of base influence way too far. But given what they have accomplished over the last few decades - both electorally and policy-wise, and that there is almost no danger that the Democrats would find themselves in a similar boat within the next few decades, I see the tactics used by Republicans activists as a positive model.

No irony here.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:30:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That did move the GOP (4.00 / 1)

into control of the executive for most of the past 30 years.  The failure was the result of the appeal being too limited (despite media bleatings, I do not agree that the country supports conservative policies) and the pervasive corruption among the republican party and its elected officials.  Of course, a similar effort from the left would be susceptible to the same obstacles, but I believe that progressive positions, particularly on economic policy, have greater acceptance.  And I expect we would be more concerned with weeding out corruption.

---

by: jar137 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 21:31:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There was no real failure at all (4.00 / 3)

They got their way on deregulation, tax policy, and military policy. Bush played his cards to the hilt, and mostly won. Remember, some things that look bad to us (like an endless war against terror or a financially strapped federal government) look good to Bush.  

Everything that is done in the next 20 years will be under unfavorable (to us) conditions established by Bush.

I don't know which adviser taught Bush about "political capital", but he understood it. If you're popular, that gives you the slack to do the unpopular things that you want to do, even if that means you lose all your popularity.

Some of the things that thugs and sleazos intutitively know are very difficult for decent, well-educated people to ever learn.

The graft was the cost of business for a semi-criminal operation.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 21:41:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Understanding our metaphors (4.00 / 1)

If we take seriously the idea of political capital, then it's not a non-renewable resource that must only be doled out in small doses until it runs out, but a resource that if used wisely, gives you more capital. That's what capital is all about.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 21:53:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's like real capital! (4.00 / 2)

The only way you get more of it is by spending it on the right things, picking the right fights. If you don't spend it it slips through you fingers like sand.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 23:27:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Disagree (4.00 / 2)

There was some very real failure.  When Reagan first came in, they were determined to roll back the welfare state.  Within 3 years, he was saving Social Security, rather than abolishing it.  America's welfare state may have always been a patchwork affair, far less effectivethan European ones, but it's proven virtually impossible to dismantle, so instead they've switched to repurposing it. Now that they've been rather successful at, but it was not their original goal.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 22:04:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mostly meant Bush (4.00 / 2)

Civil liberties, permanent war, taxes.

In health care fight is an example. We're tied to finding something that's revenue-neutral and deficit-neutral, and a lot of people (not just insurance companies and their stockholders) are doubtful of anything that harms the insurance companies.

Any good healthcare proposal will harm the insurance companies, and the more the better. But we have to pretend otherwise.

Likewise, single-payer paid for mostly by raising taxes would be good for almost everyone but middlemen. But we can't talk that way either.

Going after social security was bravado. It would have meant (in Bush's case) truning the clock back something like 72 years and would have amounted to destroying the Democratic Party.

Bush was sure to lose sooner or later. He just kept raising the bet until he lost, but he won a bunch of rounds.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 22:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure to lose (4.00 / 1)

Eliminating the estate tax should have been a sure loser.  It only hit in the millions.  Guess what, he won.  They created a mythology with no basis on fact of family farms being sold and used it to benefit billionaire families like the Waltons when no cases could be found.

Yeah, the estate tax.  Like the Wrigleys kept the chewing gum company and sold the Cubs.  

Bush was willing to create another set of lies and use it against social security.  Likely to lose?  Yes.  Sure to lose?  Not entirely.  Barry Goldwater was laughed off the stage for advocating this in 1964.  Bush made a serious effort 40 years later.  IMO, this wasn't bravado. It was a serious effort for maximum loot.  A long shot but a very real shot.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 10:57:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He was sure to lose because he played that way (4.00 / 2)

Every bet he won, he bet higher the next time. If he had won on Social Security, he would have escalated again. Maybe he would have tried for a poll tax, George Will wants one and Thatcher tried for one.

That's what I meant.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 13:25:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sounds right (4.00 / 2)

Still believe populism, by definition must be popular with the general population. If we can hold our issues to this standard, our goal will be a natural fit with discouraged non-voters as their discouragement is mostly a result of non representation from the current stance of the two parties.

As for how to do it, agree with William Timberman, we must walk the walk as well as talk the talk. And with the general assumption this will be difficult, requiring time, commitment and money.

I submit that doing what is being disscussed here can be accomplished MUCH faster, easier, and cheeper by useing Nancy Brodier's system. In fact it seems perfect for this task and time.


Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 13:22:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Nancy Has Is A Tool (4.00 / 1)

And a very good one, I think.  But even though tools can be revolutionary, they inevitably have impacts that their creators don't envision, while also being constrained in ways their creators often don't realize.  And this is where I think that Nancy has far too little appreciation for the other factors she needs to take into account.

Two factors, in particular, seem to escape serious consideration.  First, that most people's party affiliations are not driven by issue positions, but by a complex of other factors.  Second, that how people respond to the choices offered depends a good deal on how issues are framed, and this is an even more fundamental failing of Democrats and progressives, going back for decades.

That's why I think her tool is valuable, but needs to be integrated into a more diversified strategy.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 16:53:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) Can Help Progressives Get Control of the Democratic Party (4.00 / 2)

I am still working on writing a synopsis of how IVCS works and can be used by progressives to get control of the Democratic Party.

Here's what I wrote this past week:

"The Interactive Voter Choice System

The root cause of the economic and financial crises facing the American people are the undemocratic practices of the nation's two major political parties and the special interests that finance the electoral campaigns of the parties and their elected representatives.

These practices have enabled party representatives to flout the popular will and pass legislation that has sacrificed the public interest to private interests.

U.S. voters can wrest control of elections and legislation from these parties and special interests by using breakthrough Internet inventions like the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) to get control of the party system.

They can use the system's unique, policy-centered social networking website to build winning voting blocs that can take over existing political parties and build new parties.

The website's user-friendly tools and services will enable them to take the first step to getting control of the party system, which is to define their policy priorities across the board, and the second step, which is to build winning voting blocs with voters with similar priorities.

U.S. voters can take advantage of the large scale collective action potential of their IVCS-enabled voting blocs to get control of existing political parties and re-align party policy priorities, or build new political parties. Once in control of a political party, they can use party machinery to nominate, run and elect candidates for public office who will enact their policy priorities into law.

By using the system's consensus-building mechanisms to attract to their voting blocs and political parties ever greater numbers of voters across the political spectrum who share policy priorities, they can obtain the number of votes they need to win elections at all levels of government."  

Last week I drafted a short description of how IVCS-enabled voting blocs could get control of the Democratic Party:

"Taking over the Parties: Getting Down to Brass Tacks

In anticipation of the discussion found in part C below, IVCS enables the members of IVCS-enabled voting blocs to take collective action to get control of a political party and run their candidates on the party's lines on the election ballot by following a few simple steps, which include adherence to the requirements of state election laws.

The first step is for voting bloc members to count how many voters they have in their voting bloc who reside in a targeted Congressional electoral district, and compare that number to the number of voters who voted for the winning candidates in the last election.

Congressional districts have an average population of approximately 650,000. Voter turnout in the U.S., which is lower than most industrialized countries, reached only 58% in the 2008 presidential election. Turnout tends to be less than 50% in non-presidential elections. It is often far lower in gerrymandered districts in which party-backed incumbents face little or no viable opposition.

In one Congressional district in New York State, for example, only 19% turned out to vote in 2006 in a Congressional election in which the incumbent was a Democrat who had been in office for more than a decade in a gerrymandered district. Only 122,000 voters turned out to vote in that election, which the winning incumbent Democrat won with only 94,000 votes.

So, using this district as an example, if the members of the voting bloc equal or exceed the 94,000 voters who voted for the Democrat who won, then voting bloc members must make sure that at least 94,000 members of the bloc are registered to vote in the district.

Fortunately, any one can register in any political party recognized by a state in accordance with its election laws, without having to pass any litmus tests. While the nation's two major political parties have weakened the democratic process by many undemocratic practices, restricting party membership, as private clubs do, is not one of them.

Once the members of the voting bloc ascertain that they have the votes they need to win the general election, and have registered an equivalent number of their members to vote, then they can approach Democratic Party officials to see if they are willing to place the voting bloc's candidates on the party's lines on the ballot in light of the fact that the voting bloc has enough members registered to vote to elect their candidates. If party officials agree, they will have Democratic precinct leaders collect the signatures required to put the voting bloc's candidates on the Democratic Party's ballot lines for the upcoming general election.

If party officials do not agree to place the voting bloc's candidates on the Democratic Party's lines on the ballot, then the members of the voting bloc will have to run their candidates in a primary against the party's candidates. In order to get the voting bloc's candidates into the party's primary, voting bloc members will have to collect the number of signatures from registered Democratic Party members that the state requires to appear on the nominating petitions that must be filed with the state before it will place candidates on the ballot. It is worth noting that the signature gatherers do not have to be registered members of the Democratic Party, since the state requires that only the signatories have to be registered Democrats.

Since New York State requires the signatures to be from voters who have already registered with the state as Democrats, the voting bloc must have a sufficient number of its voting bloc members already registered as Democrats by the time the voting bloc takes its nominating petitions to registered Democratic voters to get their signatures, in accordance with state election laws.

Since the number of signatures from registered Democratic voters that the state requires is likely to be less than the number of voters who vote in the general election, the voting bloc may be able to get the number of signatures required by the state merely by getting signatures from its members who are registered Democrats.

If the voting bloc is running a candidate without already having the votes needed to win the general election, as projected on the basis of the previous election, then it will have to get a list of registered Democratic voters from the state election board and canvass them door-to-door until they get the required number of signatures.

While the collection of signatures can be an onerous undertaking depending on how demanding are the state's requirements, e.g. in states that require signatures to be collected from a certain percentage of all its electoral districts, the voting bloc should be able to get the required number of signatures rather easily if its membership is anywhere near the number of voters required to win a general election.

In addition, getting a sufficient number of voters to the polls to elect the voting bloc's candidates in a party primary is far less demanding than getting a sufficient number of voters to the polls in the general election, since the vote is typically decided by far fewer voters.

Once the voting bloc gets its candidates on the primary ballot and they are elected, the next step is for the voting bloc to get its 94,000 members who are registered voters to the polls to vote in the general election. If they have the voting strength they need to win primaries but not general elections, they can form electoral coalitions that can deliver the number of votes they need by allying with other IVCS-enabled voting blocs, political parties, membership-based advocacy groups, labor unions, etc, as described below.

Once the voting bloc demonstrates that it can get its candidates elected on the Democratic Party's lines, party officials should be persuaded that the bloc is now a pivotal player inside the party. If they do not show signs of cooperating in the future, then voting bloc members will need to get their members elected to a sufficient number of party positions that they can call the shots for future nominations and party operations. Since many of these officials are elected concomitantly with primary and general elections, winning voting blocs should have no difficulty in getting their members elected to a majority of party positions over the course of a few election cycles."

Obviously, my effort to explain in writing how IVCS can help is a work in progress and all input and feedback will be much appreciated. See Interactive Voter Choice System: Synopsis at Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:44:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

agree with both factors you mention, but... (0.00 / 0)

As I understand John's concept, the primary targets of a populist revolution are discouraged non-voters, and do not require convincing to change party affilation, just persuading to particapate. If our issues are popular this will be much easier than conversion.

Likewise, framing is every bit as important as you explaign, and will also be much easier to accomplish if we choose our issues carefully to be only ones that are popular with the majority (or at least a large portion) of the population.

If we are correct in our claims that our positions on most issues are more mainstream than those of the right, they will not be able to copy our program with fake populism.

Did not mean to rely on Nancy's tool exclusivly, agree that it is just part (large part imho) of overall strategy.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 16:49:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sounds right (0.00 / 0)

Still believe populism must, by definition be popular with the general populas. If we can hold our issues to this standard, our goal will be a natural fit with discouraged non-voters, as they feel ignored by the current makeup of the two parties.

Agree with William Timberman, we must walk the walk as well as talk the talk, and with the general assumption that this will require commitment, work, and money.

I submit that what we are discussing here will be a lot easier, faster, and cheeper if we use Nancy Brodier's system/method. If fact it seen perfect for this time and task.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 13:36:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oops (0.00 / 0)

Thought the previous post was lost yesterday as the page was crashing, so typed it again. Sorry.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 15:25:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strange. Google doesn't find any links to that story. (0.00 / 0)

Not even the story at the "An Ordinary Person" blog. Am I making somehtig wrong with this search, or is this a known Google problem?
http://www.google.com/search?a...

And even a normal search for the string only finds one other hit. Hmmm....

---

by: Gray @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 11:20:15 AM UTC

Two titles (0.00 / 0)

I switched at some point from "why are Democrats afraid of it" to "why are Democrats so afraid of it". The former was a mistype but was published forst, IIRC.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 11:37:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, thx, but it still looks like Google is buggy. (0.00 / 0)

Because when I search for the headline, Google finds 279 hits, most including the link to your story:
http://www.google.com/search?q...

But when I search for exactly the same link with the Google "advanced search", I get nothing? Really looks like a bug to me.

Ok, not important, the point is, your story really received widespread attention.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 12:13:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um ... Populism is Shitty Marketing, Right Now. (0.00 / 0)

here are some figures which I haven't time to url up -

about 165,000,000 have money income under 50k a year.
about 186,000,000 have money income under 75k a year.
about 20,000,000 have money income OVER 75 k a year.

about 40% of the eligible voters do NOT vote, even in POTUS elections, which has the highest turnout for elections - typically a lot more of eligible voters don't vote.

I've heard forever that the lower hte income, the less likely the voting. i've haven't success finding that info.

most of the good the gov't has done in the last 30 years has been by accident, or by the inertia of the people at the school, library, road dept. ... doing the best they can cuz they have some integrity.

this health care debate shows how f'king clueless so many of the 'leader' class in the Democratic Party are (the ones who ain't sold out!) ... how many of the professional / managerial class of the Democratic Party have ever RELIED on financial aid, or these convoluted tax credits, or the donut hole ...? they've got NO f'king clue how to make things work better on their best days, in part, cuz they ain't dependent upon these programs the way the bottom 80% of us are.

so... WHAT should progessives do?

1. how about get trained up in math and science and accounting and finance AND MAKE SHIT WORK. especially gov't stuff cuz gov't stuff is paid for by ALL of us, and gov't stuff affects ALL of us.

BTW - stick your fancy grad school degrees where the sun don't shine. MAKE SHIT WORK.

meeting, conferences, memos, tomes, books and white papers are all work - and they're all pretty fucking useless.

how many steps in a process? how long does each step take?
how can we eliminate steps or shorten steps.

2. learn to f'king market and sell your ideas.

who has time to read MORE fuckign paragraphs and pages and and pages and pages ...

KISS = Keep It Simple STUPID.

"Progressives" have the ideas -
we can't sell them worth a shit
we can't implement them worth a shit

so no one gives a shit!

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 12:35:52 PM UTC

As I said awhile back.... (4.00 / 3)

.... per Walter Karp's "Indispensable Enemies", neither the the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party want everyone to vote.

This is obvious for the Republicans, who pretty explicitly represent wealth and the upper middle class, and openly work to restrict voting -- that's Hans von Spakovsky's life work. That explains their smear campaign against ACORN.

But new Democratic voters put a lot of pressure on the present Democratic party pros and officeholders too, and force them to choose between their voters and their funders, and this explains the Democratic failure to defend ACORN. (Also, black people).

In other words, we're Democrats whether we want to be or not, but we're enemies of the Democratic Party.

A second point -- by and large the media is on the other side. That makes selling our ideas even harder. Grayson is effective partly because he's saying the right things in a forceful way, but ten years ago his message wouldn't have gotten out.

It's only a matter of time before Maddow or Olbermann fails us in some way. I say this as a big admirer, but we can't rely on commersial media people. We really need alternative media, which so far is mostly just the internet.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 12:58:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great Marketing Works. See RayGun-BushCheney or (0.00 / 0)

the last 100 years of fighting health care or fighting the 40 hour work week or fighting child labor laws.

I do NOT expect Tom Brokaw or Katie or Charlie or George W or George Steph or Cokie or Mathews or any of those f'king sell outs to NOT be sell outs. They're sell outs, end of story.

HOWEVER - 1 job as a leader is to communicate so you can persuade, AND, another job as leader is to hire people who can help you do things you're not good at. IF you suck at messaging, and you suck at hiring people to help you so you don't suck at messaging - find somethign else to do.

progressives have all kinds of hard working do gooders who can't recognize these realities, and they're in the way of devolping messaging that goes preaching to the choir, such as the set of people who are on the board of directors of planned parenthood.

EVERY year hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on campaigning, there are hundreds? thousands? of these politically liberal 'creative' types employed in Holywood and Madison Ave. selling ...

cigarettes and pick up trucks and beer and Terminator XIVXXVVI and...

we can't have good messaging against f'king lying, stealing fascists, who EXCEL at lying so they can steal?

get another job, or save the excuses for the planned parenthood directors who can AFFORD RayGun-Bush depredations, I can't ;)

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 13:22:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The hundreds of millions are not progressive hundreds of millions (4.00 / 1)

There's a reason why they're ineffective at getting the progressive message out. That's not their intention.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 13:26:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I expect Tom Brokaw, Katie, Charlie, George Steph, (4.00 / 1)

Cokie ... to be sell outs cuz they ARE sell outs. period.

I am also sick of the excuses about the media. I've been hearing them since before 1981, I was a 21 year old cook making 4 bucks an hour in Massachusetts - excuses from my educational, social, economic betters.

oh! wait ... what about the excuses from the highly paid minions of those 2 f'king losers dud-crap-kis and kerry!

there are many jobs as leader. 1 of the most important is effective communication to persuade people. Another of the most important is hiring people to help you succeed, especially in areas where you are weak.

IF you can't acknowledge the importance of communication in leadership ... cuz you had your head up your noble ass during the depredations of the RayGunCheneyBush regime, do NOT be a leader. IF you know how important messaging is AND you can't find effective people to help, do NOT be a leader.

Get 'what color is your parachute' and do something you're good at.

Bewteen hollywood and madison ave there are how many liberal creative types selling ... cigarettes, pickup truck bimbos, beer, artery clogging food, terminator XVXXXVIIVVXX, ... ?

the skills are out there. the leaders ain't.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 14:02:03 PM UTC

You're missing the point a little (4.00 / 3)

The machine democrats aren't unsuccessful progressives. They're successful, but they're not progressive.

Following Karp again, machine politicians will gladly throw an election if that's the only way they can retain control of the party. The Democratic Party is like a fair sized business, and the party pros are like its owners.

Rahm and Obama aren't unsuccessfully supporting us, they're successfully restraining us. They need our support and they want to give us something, but don't want to give us too much, because they have other important supporters whose interests oppose ours.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 14:09:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do you know this? (4.00 / 2)

How do you tell a "machine Democrat" from a "progressive"?  Is it a continuum or more binary?  I think it's more of a continuum.  If not Rahm and Obama, are there any federal officials you consider progressive, and what makes them different, and again how do you know?  I support the idea of taking over the Democratic party, but questions of trust, particularly between leaders and the grass roots never go away.  I don't think we need to obsess on this question, but there are times where it really affects action.  It's essential to stay "reality based" about people, including politicians, and avoid the twin traps of worshiping or condemning them based on assumptions rather than evidence.

---

by: dedelste @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:30:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Put them on the spot (4.00 / 3)

A few genuine insurgent Democrats would allow / force incumbents to take stands one way or another.

Last time this came up I estimated that there are 10 good Senators and 50 good Congressmen. I just made those numbers up, though. Nobody's good on every issue, and a lot of guys who are heroes on one issue are bad on others.

There are very few who are not compromised in important ways, though. And by "compromised" I mean "bought". Everyone compromises and that can be OK, but being compromised is the big problem.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 17:44:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting test (0.00 / 0)

A few genuine insurgent Democrats would allow / force incumbents to take stands one way or another.

See, sometimes I think it's better for incumbents not to take a clear stand, if that helps them be re-elected and do good things.  I'm probably one of those activists you say in a post above suffer from "fatal confusion," but I still think this is right, sometimes.

There are very few who are not compromised in important ways, though. And by "compromised" I mean "bought". Everyone compromises and that can be OK, but being compromised is the big problem.

I think this is a related point.  I assume by "compromised" you mean afraid of contributors, or voting blocs, with a different position than the politician personally holds.  I'm sure that most are compromised in this way, and agree it's not great, but again can be better than losing.  At least I think so.  You can be "compromised" in service of your ideals in general, not necessarily for personal gain.  In the lives of real politicians, like most of us, personal gain and principal can be near impossible to sort out, of course.

---

by: dedelste @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 18:45:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think stealth progressivism can work (4.00 / 4)

I'm talking about running on your goals and convincing people to support you that way.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 18:54:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mostly agree (4.00 / 1)

Just that here and there there are exceptions on particular issues.  I used to live in Princeton, NJ, Rush Holt's House district.  I think Rush is pretty much a good guy and progressive.  The area shifted a lot toward the Dems in the '90s, and redistricting also helped him.  The first time he ran (1996) I did a lot of work for his campaign -- he supported single-payer and lost in the primary.  Pharmaceutical firms are a big part of the economy around there.  He mostly stopped talking about single-payer and won in '98, was barely re-elected in 2000 against former GOP incumbent Dick Zimmer.  Now he's pretty safe, and is again co-sponsoring the main House single-payer bill, and is clearly part of the solution on health care rather than the problem.  His waffling on health care depressed me, as did a mixed record on votes to abolish the estate tax (lots of rich people in Princeton too).  But he may well have done the best he can.  Don't know.

---

by: dedelste @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 19:19:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

People still will vote their districts (4.00 / 1)

That's apparently what Holt did.

Nonetheless, it's best if a candidate can run straight and vote straight.

The real targets are the ones who betray their distracts and give all kinds of reasons. A not uncommon type. When the DNC says "That's too extreme for the American people" they often have quite different reasons for thinking the way they do. Specifically, donor interests.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 21:59:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree w/ everything except instant runoff (0.00 / 0)

I agree with everything in your first section, except for the part about instant runoff voting.

Instant runoff is at best a marginal aid to increasing political diversity; more likely it will lead to the continuation of the same two-party domination we have now.  (For instance, Australia has used IRV for years, and its house of representatives has no third-party representation.)

A superior voting system is score voting (also called range voting, and which approval voting is a sub-type of.) It is the only (single-winner) system which can actually support more than two major political parties.

More information is available at http://rangevoting.org, or in William Poundstone's "Gaming the Vote", or at my own blog, The Least of All Evils, http://leastevil.blogspot.com

---

by: mudlock @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 18:06:57 PM UTC

"[Australia's] house of representatives has no third-party representation." (0.00 / 0)

That's not because of IRV -- it's an artifact of the election system for the House. In the Australian Senate, with differently structured elections -- including IRV -- there are and have been plenty of non-Labor-Party and non-Coalition (Liberal & National Parties) Senators: independents and members of the Greens, Australian Greens, Australian Democrats, Family First, Nuclear Disarmament, Democratic Labor, and others.    

---

by: nasrudin @ Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 19:55:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The AU Senate Does Not Use IRV (0.00 / 0)

No, the Australian house certainly is two-party dominated solely because of its use of IRV.

The Australian senate does not use IRV, it uses single transferable vote (STV), which is a multi-winner, proportional-representation based method.

IRV is derived from STV, which may be what is confusing you, but IRV is a single-winner method.  The degree to which a few parties will dominate in an STV election is directly related to the number of winners in each district.  When that number is six, you end up something like the Australian Senate, with reasonably well-represented third parties.  When that number equals one, which is the case for IRV, it means two parties will completely dominate the body, just like in the Australian house.

STV isn't a terrible system, but single-winner STV (AKA IRV) is a terrible system.

---

by: mudlock @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 15:53:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Populist Progressive insurgency (4.00 / 2)

John's post a few weeks back about Walter Karp's book "Indispensible Enemies" really got my mind thinking and I went ahead and bought the book. I'm on chapter one right now -- the chapter on political parties -- and what he is saying there has a lot of relevance to John's ideas on a Progressive Democratic insurgency.

I see John's point on the target audience of "discouraged non-voters" as a constituent base. Per Walter Karp, in legislative districts where there is one-party dominance because the other party has pretty much ceded that territory to the other side, providing a populist, insurgent candidate to contest an incumbent for that seat has the potential to generate a lot of interest and can very likely motivate many discouraged non-voters to vote and even become activists themselves.

John said:

During the progressive era, the  progressive Democrats and Republicans were more or less at war with the national party organizations. We should expect the same: insurgent Democratic Progressives would have to be self-organized and self-funded and should expect nothing but hostility from the Democratic machine.

I would add expect hostility not just from the National Democratic Party but also state and local level party operatives who are part of the machine.

One question that comes to mind is what possible entry points can insurgent Progressives have to worm their way into the local and state-level Democratic Party operations?

Strangely enough, a similar strategy is currently in play on the Republican side of the fence from Tea Party folks as illustrated in this blog which details how to get elected to precinct committees for local Republican Party chapters as a way for insurgents to take over the Republican Party from the grassroots level.  

---

by: LiberalArtsDude @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 01:12:22 AM UTC