At what point do progressives stop being Democrats' whipped dogs and start acting like a movement capable of putting the Dems in their proper place as the party of the people? David Sirota wrote today about Obama's latest call to increase war spending beyond its already ludicrous proportions.
How many of the extreme right-wing and criminal policies of Bush-Cheney has Obama adopted? How many of those extreme right-wing policies has he exceeded? Last month, knowledge that Obama has gone a step further than Bush, authorizing the executive branch to murder American citizens on the flimsiest of rationales. This sh__ has GOT to end.
My political activities now are focusing on the building of a viable third party as a tool of a reinvigorated and independent progressive movement. No efforts to reform the Democratic Party from within can succeed so long as the upper-level of the party establishment is able to crush dissent from within, as is explained here.
[T]the Democratic primaries will be where the action is ... Maybe someone like Kucinich, Feingold ... It will be a "good liberal," not a radical, advocating positions that are reasonable but declared "unrealistic." ("You'll throw the race to the Republicans, we can't have that!") The basis of the campaign will not be a sudden embrace of Bolshevism, but rather Obama's embrace of Wall Street. It will be a mix of angry rank-and-file and disgruntled party machine.
The insurgent candidate will lose. The candidate will not call for a 3rd party, will support Obama after the primaries -- will make a concession speech that would shame the Moscow Show Trials. Many of her or his followers will follow suit. The candidate will not personally work to create an independent infrastructure within the Democratic Party. Obama will probably win, not because of his impressive performance but because the foaming-at-the-mouth Republicans will be splitting. After the election, the Democratic challenger will not lead a 3rd party.
This has been the pattern for decades. There is no one within the Democratic Party willing to lead a progressive breakoff. The day Dennis Kucinich kisses all party support for his re-election to Congress goodbye is the day I will rejoice, but it's not going to happen. So it's on lay progressives to take charge, organize from the ground up, and lead the way to building both the movement and the political organization that will bring it to power within the halls of our nation's capital.
This won't happen overnight; it will take decades for a fully functional progressive political organization to be built, and we will be opposed every step of the way by Democrats, Republicans, and corporations now empowered to spend as much money as their executives want to sway public opinion against us. But we have got to start sometime, and now is as good a time as any.
Those who claim this isn't the right time will not tell us that the "right time" is never going to come -- there will always be the enxt election cycle to worry about, too much at stake to "risk throwing it to the GOP." Never mind that all Democrats ever do is throw elections to Republicans simply by behaving like they're members of their counterpart political party. We must ignore such admonitions and press on. There is no such thing as perfection in politics, to be the enemy of good things that will never come to fruition so long as the existing political structure continues. And there is nothing more to be lost by doing what is right and necessary to take back our country.
The good news is that a Progressive Party already exists in some states. In Missouri, Vermont, and Washington, progressives began rebuilding the political party that bears their name from the ground up, and they used smart strategies and tactics to gain power first at the local level and then at the state level. They are now starting to branch out into national-level politics by running candidates for the House of Representatives, with a Vermont Progressive having run for the House of Representatives in 2008 on a platform that included calling for Bush's impeachment. And David Sirota has written previously about New York's Working Families Party, which has gotten results at the local and state levels.
So the foundation exists for progressives to rebuild our movement. The will is there. What's lacking is leadership. If no one in the 'netroots is willing to assume vital leadership roles, then it is up to each and every one of us to take charge and lead. Enough is enough. Progressives must stand up to the far right, which dominates both major political parties, and end its rule. No more excuses, no more capitulations, no more waiting. Let's get it done.
Ironically, it appears the most likely way to get healthcare reform is to pass GOOD healthcare reform.
The Democrats in Washington DC are likely to spend most of this week consumed by the question of how they can pass healthcare reform now. Fortunately, there's a fairly clear path.
Here are the constraints:
The Senate won't have 60 votes for diddly-squat. No Republican is going to vote for cloture on anything. Whatever the Senate is going to do needs to be done with 50 votes (plus Biden), which means budget reconciliation will have to be used.
The House doesn't trust the Senate. House members believing the Senate will fix something later is about as likely as pigs flying. Over and over in the last year, the Senate has completely screwed the House. No faith remains. That means the Senate is going to have to go first.
The House can't get 218 votes for the Senate bill. Every single House member is up for re-election in ten months. They've seen the polling, they've seen what happened in Massachusetts. They don't have political death wishes, and the profoundly flawed insurance giveaway that is the Senate bill isn't going to inspire them to take one for the team. The team they'd be asked to take one for is Aetna and United Healthcare and Joe Lieberman, friends - not their constituents. No way.
21st Century Democrats is focused on building a progressive movement from the grassroots up. Our goal is to promote populist values, activists, and candidates.
After seeing Capitalism: A Love Story today, I thought I'd give my own review in response to the one by metamars.
Two big criticisms are made against the otherwise excellent film, only one of which stands up under scrutiny. Yes, Obama is left virtually unscathed by Moore's damning critique of Congressional acquiescence to Wall Street's fear-mongering. As we all witnessed during last year's debacle, Obama was one of the chief proponents of the Wall Street bailout in the U.S. Senate, pushing for the no-strings-attached version that ultimately passed. That Obama is as responsible as any other player in the nation's economic meltdown and the massive swindle that accompanied it cannot be ignored or denied, and Moore's acknowledgment that Wall Street contributed heavily to Obama seems like a punch undeservedly pulled.
The second big critique is that while the film's message rouses outrage, little or nothing is given in the way of what can actually be done about all of it. Having now seen the film myself, I can see all kinds of ways in which We the People can fight back - not the least of which is using the power of the vote. But there's more, much more, that can be done, and Moore illustrates them with great relish.
Factory workers denied their final paychecks when the company shut down its site took barricaded themselves inside and refused to leave until they got the money owed to them.
People whose home was foreclosed upon found aid in the form of an organization formed to keep families in their houses by way of squatting. Police were called out, only to leave without enforcing the order to vacate after it became clear that no one was leaving.
I saw a bread-making factory, a co-op, meaning that each employee owns a piece of that factory and helps run it through a democratic process. The CEO has no more or less say in how the company is run than anyone else, and surprisingly (or so Moore depicts) everyone makes at least a somewhat decent wage.
Last, and by no means least, is the power of the ballot. Moore calls for a democratic revolution in Capitalism: A Love Story, the kind expressed at the ballot box. Yes, We the people do have the power of the vote, and therefore wield far more power collectively than the top one percent of Americans. Why else do you think there is such massive effort expended to disenfranchise us at the polling station? Why else do you think we are encouraged to self-segregate ourselves along racial, religious, and class lines? Why else do you think we are discouraged from even mentioning forming and using third political parties as a means of reshaping the two major ones? It's because the powerful know that if We the People were to truly rise up at election time and vote in genuine representatives to replace the corporate whores, their days of power would be over. Sure, they have the military and gobs of money, but if they were to drop the pretense of democracy by going all-out in their war against us, the rich would lose their only real weapon: our compliance.
Resistance through noncompliance worked for India. It can work for us - if we have the will to use it.
As Ian Welsh points out, what passes for a public option in the bills now being considered (a "public option" that isn't even guaranteed to pass, nor should it in its current state) is not scaring Big Insurance or Big Pharmaceutical companies. Why is this? In an earlier blog entry, Welsh describes the reasons why (I've boldfaced the most relevant points):
Because it has no built in customer base, which increases its upfront expenses for advertising and a sales-force significantly. People who have company healthcare plans can't join.
Doctors, hospitals and so on are not required to accept it, and providers will not accept it if it provides below market rates unless it also provides large numbers of patients, which it can do because it isn't pre-populated and isn't a good buy for insureds unless it can provide a low premium, which requires it to pay low rates.
It must make a profit in order to return the money up-fronted to it, and it has only 10 years to do that, but it has to start from scratch, as noted above.
The most that can be said in favor of the weak "public option" is that it MIGHT be used as the dumping ground for the poorest patients, who for various reasons aren't qualified to receive Medicaid - and even then, it's unlikely that such patients will be granted access to adequate health care under the program.
Various reasons have been suggested for the peculiar lameness of Obama's approach to health care reform, which perfectly fits a pattern of Democratic lameness going back at least two decades. None of these reasons is entirely wrong, but several are weak and useless ways of understanding of the problem and should just be dropped. I'll begin with the weak ones and move on to the stronger ones, which I'll discuss in more detail later. My overall conclusion will be, first, that we need to bypass the party organization and change the incentives working on elected Democrats, and second, that Democrats have to get rid of the corporate, anti-popular, expert-administrator model which has made it difficult or impossible for them to enlarge their base.
ONE
The Democrats aren't stupid, progressives are stupid. The Democratic leadership is following a wise strategic plan which will become clear if we're patient and don't fuck things up.
I don't see how anyone older than 25 could believe this one -- the leadership has let us down too many times. They've been keeping their powder dry for so long that most of it is past its expiration date.
TWO
The Democrats aren't stupid, progressives are stupid. The country's more conservative now, and so is the media, and progressives are going to have to get used to that and quit whining.
First, often the polls show wide support for a progressive position which then fails in Congress anyway -- without a fight and without any Democratic leadership support. But more important, the Democrats are horribly passive in the face of public opinion. Too little energy is spent on developing issues, getting progressive ideas out there, and changing people's minds, and too little energy is spent on recruiting new supporters among non-voters and independents. Instead, everything is dedicated to big media buys every two years - media buys which strengthen the network media, who are among our worst enemies. (By and large, Democratic electoral campaigns leave nothing behind; they're just money down the drain. The party has even devised tricks to systematically divert money legally earmarked for party-building activities into the campaign of the moment.)
THREE
Democrats are stupid.
The word "stupid" should be removed from the Democratic vocabulary. If the Republicans are so stupid, why did they beat us so many times? If we think the voters are stupid and they know that, how can we ever persuade them of anything? And as far as the big-time Democrats go, if a leader's words and actions seem stupid to you, it's probably because their goals are different than yours and they're just stringing you along. (There are a fair number of genuinely stupid people in the business, but they're just stooges. The real players -- e.g., Rahm Emmanuel -- are smarter than you and me, but they're not on our side and they aren't going to give us anything.)
FOUR
Democratic leaders are timid and cowardly.
There's some truth in this one, and I'll pick up on it again below: the Democratic Party does not seem to understand bargaining, bluffing, or fighting, and seems addicted to splitting the difference and finding ingenious win-win situations. But the problem is mostly just that the leadership's goals are different than ours, and mostly short-term and small-time. Political pros don't really care much whether they accomplish anything or not by our standards. Taking risks might upset their own little applecarts, so they rarely take any. They'll fight if their own interests are threatened, but they're not going to fight just for us.
FIVE
They're all really just conservatives.
In effect, that's often more or less true, but only because of their limited goals -- if there were an opportunistic advantage in being progressive or radical, they'd all be progressive or radical. It's true, however, that when a Democrat says "the people won't accept that, it's too liberal", what they usually mean is that their donors won't accept it. They don't necessarily know or care what "the people" will or won't accept.
SIX
They're all rich and don't care about ordinary people.
This's true of politicians in general and is a significant factor, but politicians who are not rich when they are elected can be among the worst -- they need the money. But in general by the time someone reaches power, they're far removed from ordinary people, about whom they often have stereotyped and mostly negative ideas.
SEVEN
They've all been bought.
This is pretty much it, and the what I'll say below will mostly just elaborate on that. The enormous amounts of money required to buy media time and pay for campaigns put everyone in Congress at the mercy of the donors and fundraisers, and this also puts most Congressmen, especially the new ones, at the mercy of the party machine. House members in particular are virtual peons until they get some seniority and a solid local power base. (Needless to say, as far as corruption and conservatism go, Republicans are worse than Democrats. But for them, what we call corruption is actually a good thing: privatization).
The best is yet to come:
CONCLUSIONS: WHAT CAN WE DO
This entry builds on what Something the Dog Said and rossl wrote in their own entries. Before I get to the meat of my own text, I just want to summarize what each of the previous entries state. Starting any political party, or building an existing one, is going to be a lot of hard work and progressives are going to face an uphill battle regardless of what we do. If we're going to break away from the Democrats, however, it's worth the effort; there are parties such as the Progressives (currently in Vermont and Washington) and the Greens, among others, that have made substantial progress at local and state levels.
That's the short version of what Something's and rossl's entries have to say. I highly recommend reading them both in full. Now, on to my own contribution to this subject. Because I want to provide a real-world context to the topic at hand, I'm going to pick an existing political party (The Progressives), though feel free to substitute your own. I'm going to lay out some first steps that can be taken to get the ball rolling.
One more thing before I begin: know WHY you are forming a new political party, know what your goals are, and have realistic expectations about what you hope to accomplish. Don't hold any illusions. Unless either the Democrats or the Republicans implode, chances are you're not going to replace one of them on the national stage. At most, and if you do things right, you'll force the Democrats to shift back to the left. That's it. If a new political party does rise to prominence, great, but that is only icing on the proverbial cake. All you'll want to do is force one of the major parties to experience an ideological shift to the political left. Expect at least a generation to pass before you get this result. It was twenty years between the 1912 election, when Theodore Roosevelt led the Progressive Party and split the presidential election three ways (thus handing it to Democrat Woodrow Wilson) and that of 1932 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the New Dealers to power. It was another generation before the Republicans built their party back up to the point where they could begin taking back political power in government. Finally, don't let the progressive movement become subservient to your party - make the party subservient to the progressive movement. David Sirota explains why far better than I can, so I'll let his words do it.
Reading through David Sirota's righteous entry, I was at once both encouraged by his passion for defending Van Jones and dismayed by the casual, utterly condescending Kos-like dismissals of those who seek the truth behind 9/11 as mere quacks. Most of these dismissals came from readers who posted comments, but even Mr. Sirota's entry contained at least one.
For the record, there is no single "9/11 Truther" movement of which I am aware. There are those who choose to engage in the worst forms of speculation, trying to bolster their ideas about what really happened with hypotheses that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Yet there are those of us who believe that, if nothing else, criminal negligence was the main thing that allowed the attacks to occur on that terrible day eight years ago this Friday. The latter group deserves, if nothing else, serious consideration and support from the left if for no other reason than a a full and honest accounting of what allowed the attack may finally be put on the public record (as opposed to the whitewash we were saddled with).
Part of the reason the left is so weak against the far right is that it refuses to support its own - even when doing so has little or no political risk. Van Jones signed a petition by people who honestly seem to believe, if nothing else, that the Bush-Cheney regime had more than enough time and information with which to take some sort of preventive action to stop the attack from being carried out. It's part of a pattern of criminal negligence in the previous regime, one proven so disastrously in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It's not such an extreme question for any sensible American to ask. Yet it is lumped in with the people who, for better or worse, think that there was more active involvement and who have chosen to subscribe to unprovable notions. As a result, a sane, progressive voice of reason in the White House has been forced to leave because he asked questions. It is only coincidence that those questions happened to be ones the powerful - in their zeal to protect their own at any cost (so long as the rest of us pay it) - would rather not be asked at all.
And so, for that reason, yet another lesson was reiterated about Obama and his inner circle: far right crazies will always be given deferential treatment, while progressives - no matter how rational, competent, effective, and passionate - are expendable. That is the larger hurt in all of this mess over Van Jones. Legitimate questions deserve legitimate answers, and the left is supposed to be about (among other things) welcoming both. When we don't do that, when we dismiss even the most rational of questions and treat the people asking them like pariahs, what do we gain? Nothing. But as Van Jones' dismissal from the White House demonstrates, we do have plenty to lose.
If you've read my previous entries, wherein I tried to get participants to help build a solid platform for progressives to rally around (still a work in progress in need of ideas, submissions, edits, and so on), you probably know that this entry is going to be about joining a "third" party. This shouldn't be surprising; reading my comments on the subject makes my position quite obvious. But unlike many people who talk about a "third" political party more as a vague concept than working reality, I am writing today about one that already exists in at least two states.
1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies
To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality health care for all.
To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.
To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America's schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving socio-economic security.
To export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.
To reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.
To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.
2. Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
To sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.
To protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.
To extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.
To fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.
To ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.
To eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.
3. Electoral Reform
Eliminate or reform the Electoral College so that a handful of states cannot game the system to override the will of the electorate;
Introduce Instant Runoff Voting so that a wider variety of political parties may compete in elections;
Eliminate private money in elections by creating a national, mandatory, publicly-funded election pot from which all federal candidates must draw;
Pass laws, up to and including further amendment(s) to the Constitution, protecting the right of every citizen over the age of eighteen to vote; and
Make it easier for candidates from political parties outside the Democrats and Republicans to enter and complete fairly in elections and the debates thereof.
4. Promoting Global Peace and Security
To honor and help our overburdened international public servants - both military and civilian.
To bring U. S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible.
To re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American reputation, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
To enhance international cooperation to reduce the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.
To increase efforts to combat hunger and the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
To encourage debt relief for poor countries and support efforts to reach the UN's Millennium Goals for Developing Countries.
5. Environmental Protection & Energy Independence
To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation's security.
To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation's security.
To change incentives in federal tax, procurement, and appropriation policies to:
(A.) Speed commercialization of solar, biomass, and wind power generation, while encouraging state and local policy innovation to link clean energy and job creation;
(B.) Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles, enhance global competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, and expand consumer choice;
(C.) Increase investment in construction of "green buildings" and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces;
(D.) Link higher energy efficiency standards in appliances to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in U.S. factories;
To eliminate environmental threat posed by global warming and ensuring that America does our part to advance an effective global problem-solving approach.
To expand energy-efficient transportation choices by increasing investment in synthesized networks, including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.
To preserve prudent public interest regulations that encourage sustainable growth and investment, ensure energy diversity and system reliability, protect workers and the environment, reward consumer conservation, and support an expanding marketplace that rewards the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies.
To protect, preserve, restore, and where reasonably possible expand wild lands and animal and plant populations endangered by human activity, reasonably compensating businesses and homeowners for damages or losses incurred by such.
Pass legislation and encourage community leadership to, among other acts: Increase funding to child placement services (foster care agencies); increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that are proven to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies; increase awareness of the protective benefits of proper use of contraceptives, and increase access to them; increase funding for educational programs to spread awareness of sexually transmitted pathogens including viruses and bacteria, and their effects upon the human body; increase funding for prenatal care for unwed and low-income mothers; and expand daycare and nanny services to assist low-income families and single parents who choose to keep their children after birth.
7. Gun Control and State Militias
Adopt reasonable gun control laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while preserving the 2nd Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Restore full control of the National Guard units to their respective states, maintaining both a federal standing military and the individual state-controlled and regulated Militias.
8. Legalizing Marijuana
Legalize marijuana, and regulate it like tobacco and alcohol.
Increase funds to existing education and rehabilitation programs; create new programs and expand existing ones where necessary, to reduce addiction; pass common sense drug laws that focus on rehabilitation for non-violent offenders; and engage parents and community leaders to educate their children on the dangers of drugs.
1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies
To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality health care for all.
To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.
To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America's schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.
To export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.
To reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.
To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.
2. Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
To sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.
To protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.
To extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.
To fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.
To ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.
To eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.
3. Electoral Reform
Eliminate or reform the Electoral College so that a handful of states cannot game the system to override the will of the electorate;
Introduce Instant Runoff Voting so that a wider variety of political parties may compete in elections;
Eliminate private money in elections by creating a national, mandatory, publicly-funded election pot from which all federal candidates must draw; and
Pass laws, up to and including further amendment(s) to the Constitution, protecting the right of every citizen over the age of eighteen to vote.
4. Promoting Global Peace and Security
To honor and help our overburdened international public servants - both military and civilian.
To bring U. S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible.
To re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
To enhance international cooperation to reduce the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.
To increase efforts to combat hunger and the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
To encourage debt relief for poor countries and support efforts to reach the UN's Millennium Goals for Developing Countries.
5. Environmental Protection & Energy Independence
To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation's security.
To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation's security.
To change incentives in federal tax, procurement, and appropriation policies to:
(A.) Speed commercialization of solar, biomass, and wind power generation, while encouraging state and local policy innovation to link clean energy and job creation;
(B.) Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles, enhance global competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, and expand consumer choice;
(C.) Increase investment in construction of "green buildings" and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces;
(D.) Link higher energy efficiency standards in appliances to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in U.S. factories;
To eliminate environmental threat posed by global warming and ensuring that America does our part to advance an effective global problem-solving approach.
To expand energy-efficient transportation choices by increasing investment in synthesized networks, including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.
To preserve prudent public interest regulations that encourage sustainable growth and investment, ensure energy diversity and system reliability, protect workers and the environment, reward consumer conservation, and support an expanding marketplace that rewards the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies.
To protect, preserve, restore, and where reasonably possible expand wild lands and animal and plant populations endangered by human activity, reasonably compensating businesses and homeowners for damages or losses incurred by such.
Pass legislation and encourage community leadership to, among other acts: Increase funding to child placement services (foster care agencies); increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that are proven to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies; increase awareness of the protective benefits of proper use of contraceptives, and increase access to them; increase funding for educational programs to spread awareness of sexually transmitted pathogens including viruses and bacteria, and their effects upon the human body; increase funding for prenatal care for unwed and low-income mothers; and expand daycare and nanny services to assist low-income families and single parents who choose to keep their children after birth.
7. Gun Control and State Militias
Adopt reasonable gun control laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while preserving the 2nd Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Restore full control of the National Guard units to their respective states, maintaining both a federal standing military and the individual state-controlled and regulated Militias.
8. Legalizing Marijuana
Legalize marijuana, and regulate it like tobacco and alcohol.
Increase funds to existing education and rehabilitation programs; create new programs and expand existing ones where necessary, to reduce addiction; pass common sense drug laws that focus on rehabilitation for non-violent offenders; and engage parents and community leaders to educate their children on the dangers of drugs.
I wrote this as a personal reflection point; I don't presume to know or be suggesting any statistical or methodological pretext in this post. I just wanted to raise the observations of one node in the network.
I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.
As a lifelong Texas Democrat, I don't know if there's anything that pains me more than having to cite Ron Paul at the beginning of my first post written for OpenLeft. But the man has a point -- what the heck just happened?
I read the national blogs -- the "short head" of the political blogosphere -- regularly, but not fervently. I browse the stories on Google Reader, go to several sites to comment on interesting posts, but my real focus is on state politics. I write for Burnt Orange Report down in Texas, and if I only have 30 minutes a day to focus on blogging politics, I'll focus on state politics and not really pay attention to national politics.
This is all by way of saying that I just lose some stories. I just do. And, for whatever reason -- my recent graduation from grad school, job hunting, blah blah -- I had no idea that nearly 2/3 of progressives who pledged not to fund the war have totally changed their minds until KT got all of us over at BOR involved.
But now what? I can do little more than read the coverage. And that's what this post is about -- the different tones in coverage that are now recorded and part of the "history" of this particular Congressional milestone. But I'm not talking about Democrat vs. Republican (as all the major papers will report), or even Democrats vs. Democrat (which is the more obvious discussion for Democrats to have). No, I'm talking about the difference in tones among Democrats that wanted the "No" vote, including:
These are not the whole spectrum of tones, I'm sure -- just the ones I interacted with right away when I was reading about this tonight. And I don't mean to pigeonhole any/all of these voices as solely existing in that tone. Those descriptors are relevant to this set of observations on this issue, with the hope that a simple case-study may generate an interesting discussion.
So here's the question: in light of the fact that I wish I had done more and am displeased by the outcome, how do I react/respond to the various rhetoric of the coverage provided by those whose goals I agree with?
One of the biggest memes the netroots is constantly fighting against is the idea that we mindlessly participate in an "echo chamber." Yet I would argue that each of those posts has decidedly different tones, and that each tone influences an activists' perception on the work that was done in distinctly different ways.
Ultimately, the dividing line among these voices has little to do with any talking points -- because each group supported the same side of the same issue. Instead, the dividing line amongs the "progressives of the progressives" appears to be those who appreciate emergence politics, and those who don't.
Mike Quigley thanks his supporters at John Barleycorn in Wrigleyville (Chicago) for their help in achieving this progressive victory.
In this heavily Democratic district, there was little doubt that the Democratic candidate would win but in this victory we have a true progressive who's made his career about challenging the machine.
Feeling on the street: Quigley was a County Commissioner in Cook County. We will sorely miss him.
We wrote earlier this month about how the Working Families Party is doing some of the best work out there in creating an accessible narrative for progressives in the economic crisis, the most recent example being their use of Monty Burns in fighting for Fair Share Tax Reform. Well, in the aftermath of the AIG bonuses debacle, the WFP in Connecticut is doing some wonderful narrative-building of their own - drawing attention for their "Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous" tour of AIG Financial Products Division executive homes - a story in today's New York Times, after some perfunctory "it's so hard to be an executive when people are angry at you" tearjerking, highlights the effort:
The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, is planning a bus tour of A.I.G. executives' homes on Saturday, with a stop at the company's Wilton office.
"We're going to be peaceful and lawful in everything we do," said Jon Green, the director of Connecticut Working Families. "I know there's a lot of anger and a lot of rage about what's happened. We're not looking to foment that unnecessarily, but what we want to do is give folks in Bridgeport and Hartford and other parts of Connecticut who are struggling and losing their homes and their jobs and their health insurance an opportunity to see what kinds of lifestyle billions of dollars in credit-default swaps can buy."
Big and bold. That's Mike Lux's recipe for sweeping transformative change. That's the way for progressives to achieve a Big Change Moment, as Lux calls it in his new book, "The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be." Lux likens progressive ideals to American ideals, and calls for progressives to pressure cautious Democrats hesitant to spend political capital.
I'm not talking about President Obama specifically. As Lux wrote here yesterday, Obama has taken tremendous strides to get past the hurdles of centrist cabinet picks and stay on the progressive track. You could hear calls for a Big Change Moment in Obama's congressional address last week, and you can see audacious ambition in his economic recovery bill and budget. While Lux is right when he says we shouldn't hesitate to disagree with the President on everything from the banking crisis to the war in Afghanistan--particularly when Obama respects plurality of opinion--this ought to go double (or I guess increase exponentially depending on your math skills) for every Democrat in Washington right now.
Well, I'm jumping into the arena with my two cents about Nate Silver's very misguided attack on David Sirota. Here's an excerpt from the post below the fold:
Nate, ... the traits you ascribe to yourself, as a "rational progressive," are really not very far left of center at all, and have a very poor track record of producing any change since Reagan took office in 1981. Surely you have read Drew Westen's book, The Political Brain, in which Dr. Westen argues persuasively that politics is NOT a battle of ideas. Politics is not a battle of wills, either - it's a battle to persuade the powerful (usually through mass mobilization) that they really have no choice but to accede to the demands of the public, because the powerful will lose their positions if they do not accede to these demands. Unfortunately, many of the traits you embrace, such as credulous, conversational, technocratic, emphasizing ideas and rational argument, are precisely the traits that Dr. Westen argues kept the Democrats a minority in Congress for over a decade and allowed Dubya to be elected twice, to wreak havoc on the U.S. and the World.
The core traits of each profile are not properly matched, in my view. The core "rational" trait is "incrementalist" (last line) and the core "radical" trait is "transformational." (First line.)
The traits you call "rational" are better described as "insiderism," which I derive from "inside the Beltway." Your category "radical" is more neutrally designated the "transformational progressive."
And I concluded with the following thoughts:
In comparing David's work to the demagoguery of wingnuttia you have made a serious mistake. David's perspective is as a journalist trying to report facts, firmly set in the reality based community. Wingnuts stir up emotions based on tribal stereotypes and false statements. David's rhetorical flourishes berating politicians who will not take on Big Money are rooted in his passionate desire to see progressive policies adopted.
And David's criticisms of Big Money and the politicians that it has in its pockets are not criticisms of New Deal/Fair Deal capitalism where a regulated economy produced growing prosperity for many (white) Americans in the 1950's, 1960's, and early 1970's. He's criticizing the policies of the Disaster Capitalists described by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine.
I personally think you owe David a formal apology. Please give an apology careful consideration.
A bell rings. The sound reverberates. A sentiment shared aloud resonates within the heart, mind, body, and soul of persons who heard the message. No matter the actions taken afterward, sullen statements are not easily erased from memory.
Days before Congress was asked to pass the stimulus package, the President uttered the now famous phrase; "I won," Republicans, as could have been expected, expressed resentment. Immediately, subsequent to President Obama's statement Democrats were said to have followed the Chief Executive's lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked if he thought Republicans might block the initiative. Empathically, he replied; "No." Today we know differently. In the House, the measure received no support from the Grand Old Party.
As we await approval from the Senate we may wish to consider, the past. Words that evoke division have a lasting effect.
Please peruse a missive penned shortly after President Obama reacted to pressure from the "Right."
$800 billion is a lot of money, so you'd think that it would see more reporting than the stupid Blago story, which reveals more about the insipid priorities of the traditional media than anything about the Obama administration. Alas, we have the media that soap companies pay for, not one that we pay for. There is however some reporting on the package - this Washington Post piece on the stimulus by Paul Kane and Michael D. Shear sticks out for three reasons. One, they actually try to explain some of the substance of the package and delve into the internal debates within the Democratic caucus and the Obama team. It's basically a fight between people who want to build environmentally sustainable public works projects and those who want more roads and highways in exurban dying areas. The advantage of building roads and highways is that you can put shovels in the ground today, the advantage of smart growth projects is that they are, well, better.
Of course, it's the Blue Dogs who want roads and highways, and progressives and labor people who want sustainable infrastructure.
But the green-collar proposals have also come under fire. Hill, the incoming Blue Dog co-chairman, said he opposes including these proposals and the medical technology project in the stimulus plan, suggesting that "somewhere down the road" they be considered under the normal legislative process.
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire blogger
UPDATE: Friday afternoon, President-Elect Barack Obama confirmed the nomination of Rep. Hilda (D-Calif) for Secretary of Labor.
President-elect Barack Obama named Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., as the next administration's Secretary of Labor this morning. To put it simply, progressives are ecstatic about the pick.
