Open Left

"We need more progressives in Congress..." (4.00 / 2)

I am not so sure. Would be nice, sure. But before the last election I heard we had to win control of the Presidency to turn the country around. In the election before that it was critical to win Congress to make a change. I do not have answers but there seems always to be an answer that points to elections as an explanation for why we can't get progressive change from Republicans or Democrats. Maybe the electoral route is not the path to go. God knows we have helped Dems win election after election and in terms of progressive change there has been only cosmetic changes. And as Master Jack says in his post, the longer our Corporate Democratic party does not address substantial issues, the longer Obama plays with himself, the greater the opening for a dangerous and potent right-wing populism. We may not see the stew that is boiling under 17% (broadly measured) unemployment and state cutbacks in health and welfare, and rising foreclosures, but it is surely there.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 08:31:12 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Of Course Elections Alone Won't Do The Trick (4.00 / 2)

But electing more progressives (and defeating a few "moderates", most notably Specter) will certainly be very helpful. Why is this even an issue?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 09:37:21 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]

The issue (4.00 / 1)

is where to spend time and money. The issue for me is whether we discourage people by hyping progressive candidates and then end up with a government that reflects the collective approved wisdom of our ruling elite. Look. Obama's and the Democrat's governing from the center (center-right?) makes a certain sense at least to them. Every vote he/they win over from the independents/undecided/centrist is something like two votes. One more for the Dems, one less for the Republicans. He/they do not have such an issue with the left. We are not going to vote or support the right in any circumstance...so lose some support on the left sure...the more important support is in the center...the dopes who cannot make up their minds. Inevitably that means the Democrats themselves more and more reflect the Republicans (who are after all the engine that sets the agenda, and shapes our political discussion. See dynamic two lines above). Inevitably that means a falling off of enthusiasm and support from voters brought into the electoral process in 2008 but who do not see enough change in their lives to justify the continuing effort to participate; it means a part of the left that just stops involving itself in the two-party system disguste by the two parties which represent the same corporate class. What I am raising is, given the meager results that have been produced by the enormous landslide electoral victories of the last two elections, perhaps electoral politics in the sense of going out and working for a progresive candidate is not where we want to concentrate  much of our efforts and exertions. I admit I do not have a real answer...I think we should be thinking about this ...and think outside the box/trap we are in.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 13:03:25 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

we're already outside the box (0.00 / 0)

he more important support is in the center...the dopes who cannot make up their minds. Inevitably that means the Democrats themselves more and more reflect the Republicans (who are after all the engine that sets the agenda, and shapes our political discussion.

This is where electoral identity politics and similar strategies come in.  That's how Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries - if you can win 80-90% of a small but highly mobilised segment (in this case black voters) then you can afford to lose by a few points with the remainder of the voters.

You can, as the republicans showed for several elections with things like anti-affirmative action and anti-gay marriage referenda, do the same thing with other segments of the voting base.  The trick is more to get it right rather than that the possibility isn't there and the only option is triangulation.

But both a resurgent progressive wing in the Democratic Party as well as a 3rd party (hopefully the two will get along) to keep the Democratic Party honest would be useful.   And it is certainly worth building both.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 18:29:39 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Because so many people are focusing on elections alone (4.00 / 2)

If other people were doing effective direct organizing that was actually organizing the unemployed and those threatened with unemployment, then "Of Course Elections Alone Won't Do the Trick" would be more than a true banality.  And Paul, you know better.

Strategy is never discussed.  Thus the default strategy is "elect more Democrats."  To say that arguing over what our stance should be towards Obama is a strategic discussion makes a mockery of the word "strategic."  That is not adequate.  In the 60's, people argued over demonstrations, going into poor white communities, colonizing factories, sticking with the campus base, AND electoral politics.  Many foolish things were said and done, but it was a healthy, strategic discussion, and people backed up their arguments by actually trying to do what they advocated.

The disparity today between what is needed and what is possible, and what is done, is pathetic.  You may ask, well, what am I doing?  Not much.  I'm 60 years old, diabetic and have a torn left knee.  And frankly, I'd rather be labeled a hypocrite than a sheep.

---

by: jeffroby @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:21:35 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

You Have A Point (4.00 / 1)

And I'm keenly aware of it.  I can tell just from the amount of comments I get what sorts of things attract people's attention.

I just think that, in the long run, more people will be won over to serious strategic thought and action by acknowledging the need for a variety of approaches.  It doesn't mean I'm happy with the present mix.  Sorry if I gave that impression.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 15:19:57 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

you can only get change towards your values from someone who minimally shares them (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that criteria applies to most of the Democrats in Congress (it doesn't for me).  However, I don't think the solution to this problem is singular - some people will get fed up and gravitate towareds third party organising, some people will get fed up and put their energy in non electoral work, some people will try to get candidates they share values with through the primaries, and some people will be cautious and try and maintain the place of the democratic party over all.  it's a big tent right now, of necessity, but the trick is to keep focusing on the shared values, because  it would be good - from my vantage point - to maintain that grand coalition for a time.  that's if we're not envisioning an immediate and complete overhaul of u.s. politics immediately (e.g. publicly financed campaigns, making the senate democratic, and other steps) that would require significant constitutional rewriting and the kind of political power that progressives/radicals don't have right now.  so it has to be contemplated how to get it in the long run.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 18:39:12 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]