tactics

On Shame As A Tactic, Or, Betsie Gallardo: She Won...And So Can You!

by: fake consultant

Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 13:41

We have been following the story of Betsie Gallardo lately, she being the woman that, due to a medical decision, was being starved to death in a Florida prison.

She has inoperable cancer, her death is imminent, and her mother was working hard to make it possible for Betsie to die at home with some dignity.

As we reported just a couple days ago, half the battle was already won, as the Florida Department of Corrections had agreed to place her in a hospital so that she could again go back on nutritional support.

On January 5th, the Florida Parole Commission voted to allow her to end her life at home-and that means you spoke out, made a difference, and achieved a complete victory for the effort.

But even as we celebrate that victory, I think we should take a moment to realize that there is a bigger lesson here: the lesson that the fights over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), benefits for 9/11 first responders (the Zadroga Bill), and Betsie Gallardo's imminent release are all actually pointing us to a political strategy that works, over and over, if we are willing to understand the wisdom that's been laid before us.

There's More... :: (1 Comments, 721 words in story)

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

by: Michael Kwiatkowski

Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's More... :: (7 Comments, 71 words in story)

Re: Lieberman Or Why We Need A "Viable" 3rd Party

by: Steelydan3

Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:50

I read with some interest the mean things that Markos said about Ralph Nader, arguably the greatest journalist who has ever lived. I voted for Barack Obama but with eyes wide open. I think he'll be better and more sensible than the Republicans in power. But we really need to take a deeper look at our loyalty to the democratic party and the democratic party only if we're really serious about things like the rule of law applying to everyone or even getting out of wars that would be more honestly defined as crimes. In short: if you really want to put the fear of god into Democrats, then you need to start supporting third party candidates. This crazy idea that we just keep giving them more money no matter how horribly they treat us simply isn't beginning to fly anymore.
There's More... :: (4 Comments, 1019 words in story)

How should a progressive atheist respond to Romney's speech?

by: FearItself

Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:39

I am seething with anger at Romney's speech, which rolled non-Christians (and especially non-believers like myself--atheists and agnostics) under the bus for the sake of portraying Romney and the evangelical Xtian community as being on the same side in an overarching culture war. I want to come out stomping and spitting and embrace the corresponding ideological demagogues on "my side," like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. (See? My reaction is so irrational that I'm ready to don the same jersey as Hitchens, despite his obvious derangement.)

>deep breath<

But that's what Romney wants. His speech is the rhetorical version of a terrorist attack on an iconic building (like, say, the Golden Dome mosque); he wants a passionate reaction from us because victory in the argument over the separation of religion and state is not important to him. What he wants, what he needs, is for the discourse about this issue to devolve altogether from a rational argument about such separation to a verbal conflict between all the "people of the Book" and everybody else. The more vicious that conflict becomes, the better for him, because such conflict will reinforce the (ludicrous) evangelical Xtian sense that they are collectively threatened by a "secular" serpent. The harder we lash out at him with our indignation, the easier it will be for him to make an appeal of unity to the religious right, and thus turn them out to vote.

So how do we respond? Some suggestions:

1) Focus on the enlightenment founding fathers' ideal of separation of church and state--especially the ideal that no one religion should be endorsed as a national faith. That language should help remind the faithful that we are talking about multiple, conflicting religions (some of which they disagree with!) rather than a monumental struggle between believers in Christ and everyone else.

2) Take every opportunity to remind people of the weirdness of Mormonism. Not that Mormonism is necessarily any weirder than any other religion, but its particular weirdness creeps out our evangelical right, and we should use their religious bias to our political advantage. It's a wedge, but wedges only work if you hit them with a hammer.

3) Resist the urge to lump all believers together as superstitious sheep. Remind yourself of the people of faith you know who are decent, generous, well-intentioned, smart, and intellectually honest. They don't deserve to be lumped in with Mitt and the people whom he hopes will respond to his dog-whistle appeal. Attacking them all as a single class would a disservice to many people of faith who deserve better, in addition to reinforcing Mitt's frame.

I'm sure there's more to say, but that's all I have for now.

Discuss :: (5 Comments)

A question of tactics: Sheehan v. Pelosi [w/ POLL]

by: Sam

Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 22:18

From Salon.com's War Room blog:

[Cindy] Sheehan has upped the ante once again, telling the Associated Press that if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) doesn't move to impeach President Bush by July 23, then she will run to replace Pelosi in 2008.

Sheehan's latest move raises a question which in some ways seems fundamental to the premise of this blog: Namely, how forcefully should progressives challenge liberals and centrist Democrats when they take a go-slow approach to critical issues?

More after the link...

There's More... :: (38 Comments, 263 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox