Politico's article today is the latest in a string of articles about the massive edge in money pro-Republican outside groups have over pro-Democratic groups. The article cites a $23 million to $4 million dollar ratio in advertising so far. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that outside groups tend to be trusted more than political party advertising.
The article makes pretty clear that some Democrats on the Hill want to blame the outside groups on our side for not doing enough, and we will see more of that kind of blame game in the coming weeks. It is certainly understandable that individual members who take tough votes are frustrated when big corporate interests dump money on their districts for ads that in many cases are just blatant lies, and no one comes to their defense. I know the party committees are pulling their hair out with the barrage of corporate money being thrown into targeted races everywhere. But here's the deal: congressional leaders need only look down the street, Pennsylvania Avenue to be precise, to find the answers as to why there isn't more money going into independent expenditure efforts on the Democratic side.
This is in part a historical problem, a pattern in the party leadership that I sometimes refer to as the curse of the control freaks. Republicans for many years have understood far better than Democrats that outside issue and ideological groups ought to be empowered, not discouraged. Haley Barbour, Karl Rove, and other top Republicans have for years happily worked hand in hand with Grover Norquist, the NRA, the Christian Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the Koch Industries front groups, and the entire right-wing infrastructure. Republicans came to their strategy meetings, attended their fundraising dinners, signed their direct mail pieces and emails and Tweets and text messages. Republican operatives have for decades understood that conservative organizations with well-known brands had more credibility with key blocs of voters than either political party and most candidates.
The same is true with progressive groups and key voting blocs as well, but the Democratic Party has never paid these groups much attention. Polling shows quite clearly that many swing suburban voters find ads or mailings from Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, and groups like them far more credible than ads from the Democratic Party. Union members are far more likely to read and respect a mailing from their union than a partisan mail piece.
These trends are even bigger in an election cycle like 2010, when both parties' brands are in the mud. Independent group messages have far more credibility and clout than those from party and candidate committees- even groups with generic-sounding names no one has heard of. Republican strategists like Rove got this early, and went about methodically organizing a network of corporate money to get involved in independent expenditure ads in swing races all over the country. But the Obama White House, sure of its fundraising ability and organizing genius, has consistently sent the signal to Democratic donors to not support outside efforts. They did it after they won the primary in 2008; they did it when they set up OFA to operate solely inside the DNC in 2009; they did it during the health care fight when they felt HCAN was being a little too independent in pushing for a public option, sending a clear signal to donors not to give to them at crucial times during the fight; they did it when ACORN had some bad publicity, very quickly making the decision to distance themselves and let them die even though no group has registered more voters or turned out more people in the last 10 years than ACORN.
I have been fighting this battle inside Democratic strategy circles for 15 years now, but the problem is worse with the current team at the White House. The folks running the Obama political operation have always believed they could control the message and the resources of the party better than anyone else, and that they didn't need or want to empower outside progressive groups. Now embattled House and Senate candidates are paying the price, and it is a bitter price to have to pay. The groups that do have resources that are pro-Democratic- labor, MoveOn, Emily's List, the trial lawyers- are doing their best to stem the tide. But corporate money in the post-Citizens United era is swamping us, and unlike in some cycles in the past (2004, 2006), wealthy progressive donors were sent signals not to engage, or just not cultivated at all, and the result is that we are being badly outspent.
One final note on all this: the irony of outside progressive groups being blamed for not doing enough to help the Democrats when the White House has been complaining about the "left of the left" and the "professional left" for many months- and de-motivating donors the whole time- should not be lost on anyone. You can't attack progressives for being too strident and then wonder why they aren't doing more and still have much credibility.
As I have written in recent days, I still have hopes that Democrats can do better this cycle than the conventional wisdom suggests, especially if the Democrats use a pro-reform populist message that is actually effective. But the curse of the control freaks is not helping anything.
"I don't really want to stop the show,
But I thought that you might like to know," That the choice becomes clearer.
"So let me introduce to you
The one and only" Carole Kaye, Candidate for Florida House District 86
Local Election Days are upon us. For months now candidates for elected office have roamed their regions. Everyday people have had ample opportunity to meet, greet, and yes, even eat a meal with aspirants. Often, one challenger's name is better known. He or she may be an incumbent, or closely associated with one. Consider the Florida House race in District 86. Two very different Democratic candidates Carole Kaye and Lori Berman appear on the ballot. Who are these office seekers? What will they do for my community, commerce, our children, and me? Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, and parts of Boca Raton constituents, who have not made politics their lives, search for answers as they travel to the polls.
Citizens are inundated with "information." Posters dot the landscape. Banners fly on Boulevards. Constituents don pins and place placards on their lawn. Windows and automobile bumpers have not escaped unscathed. Today, the message heard on avenue is "The time is now." Indeed, it is. Early voting began on August 9 and will continue through August 22, 2010. In Florida, while technically Primary Election Day is August 24, 2010, in reality it is today. In Palm Beach County House District 86, Primary Election Day is the final deciding date. Democrats with different styles compete for state House 86 seat. there is no Republican challenger in this race. The winner of the Primary will represent South Palm Beach County communities. Yet, many people do not feel equipped to decide. Whom might I cast a ballot for, the much lauded Lori Berman or the lesser known, highly qualified, Attorney, Educator, and person who for years has shared and cared for my backyard, Carole Penny Kaye.
I've argued before that national third parties only have a real chance when one of the main parties falls apart. That's happened twice before, and it just might could happen again. So I wouldn't rule third parties out, but neither would I say there's much point in such organizing before one of the main parties starts to crumble. But's it's also the case that in the 1850s, both major parties started to fall apart, splitting into Northern and Southern factions. And I've also said that that sort of double failure could potentially happen again. In fact, yesterday digby just hit on a familiar theme again, which sent my thoughts in that direction--and even beyond:
Wrong Turn
by digby
I do hope the Democrats are paying close attention to this because it might just save their bacon if they play their cards right. Here's the lugubrious GOP star Mike Pence on the passage of the emergency state teacher, cop and firefighter funding:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) picked up on that theme today on ABC's Top Line, calling it a "massive state bailout." When host Z. Byron Wolf asked what the GOP plan would be to help teachers who are about to lose their jobs - particularly the 3,600 in Indiana, Pence didn't have much to offer:
PENCE: Well, look I'm married to a school teacher. My wife spent more than a decade in a public school classroom. So I love teachers! Teachers, firefighters, policemen are all Americans and they all know that the economic policies of bailouts and handouts have failed to create jobs.
can you spot the fear and dissonance there? I knew that you could.
I'm telling you, this is where the vulnerable underbelly of their "just say no" campaign. They are voting against nice, white, suburban middle class Americans this time (along with nice brown and black suburban middle class Americans) with this crusade. And going after teachers, cops and firefighters is a very, very dangerous thing to do. And as I wrote before, the Democrats should throw it right in their face.
Now, as I see it, there's a three-way death race going on here. On the one hand, the Democrats have forever been racing away from anyone they used to care about that the GOP shakes a stick at. It used to be poor blacks. Then they got rid of the black part. It was just poor folks, no, wait, make that poor kids. No, make that the middle class... no, wait, Wall Street needs it more. Those middle class folks with irresponsible under-water mortgages--they're the real problem. They got's to learn some personal responsibilities. Yes-siree! 'Specially them teachers!
So, that's the Democratic Party death race--running away from standing with anyone who can vote.
The GOP death race, OTOH, is like digby says, running toward demonizing anyone who can vote. Teachers, firemen, police, paramedics. Bunch 'a loser parasites!
Which one will self-destruct first?
Or--much the like last time around--will it be number three? Will it be the whole dang country that goes into death spasms?
Digby's absolutely right that there's a totally golden opportunity for the Dems here.
But so long as Robert Gibbs & Co are pissing all over everyone who ever knocked on door for them, they're going to have a helluva time taking advantage of it. Gibbs seems even more cluelessly dedicated to the Democratic death march than Pence is dedicated to the GOP death march.
Which leaves us all with the Catfood Commission, and the bipartisan deathmarch for America.
After the best Netroots Nation conference yet, my wife and I hit the road out west, going to 4 national parks - Sequoia, King's Canyon, Yosemite, and the John Muir woods - and ending the trip in San Francisco, my favorite city to visit. Spending time in the majesty of the trees, mountains, canyons, and valleys of Western America fills up your soul with goodness like nothing else I know of. But being with the good folks of Netroots Nation does pretty well at that too.
The progressive netroots is a fascinating movement. Having been around progressive politics for 30 plus years now gives one perspective, and the netroots movement has a lot of the same characteristics as some of the other social movements and constituencies I have seen, but is also very different in some ways. Whether you think of it as starting from MoveOn's dramatic beginning in 1998, or from the time Jerome Armstrong and Markos began blogging around 2002, the netroots is still a very young movement, and they have a lot of the characteristics of young movements: the excitement of previously ignored people getting a taste of political power for the first time; the passion of people organizing for the first time; the creativity of people not constricted by old ways of thinking about politics; the impatience and anger at how messed up and slow to change things are; the aggressiveness of a movement seeing the potential of power but not yet part of the power structure.
A lot of times what happens in politics is that movements become strong enough to get a seat at the table, but once they have that seat, their leadership becomes satisfied, complacent, and stale. Once you have your seat, you don't want to lose it by pushing too hard, and you start to accept the conventional wisdom of everyone else already seated there alongside you.
The question for the netroots is what happens now. A seat at the Democratic Party table is a good thing in many ways, and it is within range. This is a movement, though, that will die faster then most if it becomes stale, complacent, or captive to conventional wisdom. What makes this movement a movement is the early-adapter edge, the creativity, the ability to say what is not being said by the establishment. If that is lost, people will get bored and communities build on websites will erode.
On the other hand, without the knowledge of what works on the inside or the capacity to build longer term institutions, without the kinds of relationships with insiders that can turn activism into legislative accomplishments, all the good work being done by this movement will run into a brick wall and people will get frustrated and start drifting away. Striking the balance right is challenging for any young movement, especially one as diverse, bottom-up, and (small d) democratic as the netroots.
The lengths to which pundits, analysts, and establishment political leaders have always gone to avoid using dreaded populism in their political strategies for Democrats has always been remarkable to me. From Republicans since Richard Nixon, appeals to a moralist and angry middle class are all politically brilliant, but Democrats, so it is said, should avoid it as a political tactic because it doesn't work. When Lee Atwater observes that "the swing vote in every Presidential election is populist in nature", he is a genius. When Democrats start sounding like populists, we are told it just doesn't work.
From the DLC to the New Democrats to the folks at Third Way to columnists like David Broder and David Brooks to authors and analysts like Matt Bai, the advice is to be careful about seeming too angry and too anti-business. Some argue that a democratic, progressive populism has never worked in American politics, that it was at its highest point under William Jennings Bryan and he was still a loser. Some will deign to admit that FDR showed a populist streak, but then say that no one else with a similar message has won a Presidential election. The more thoughtful of these analysts, such as Bai, point to demographic and economic changes as the reason. Bai believes that "the only potent grass-roots movement to emerge from this moment of dissatisfaction with America's economic elite exists not in support of the president or his party, but far to the right instead, in the form of the so-called Tea Party rebellions that are injecting new energy into the Republican cause." He goes on to argue:
But there is something more fundamental going on here, too, an underlying shift in the meaning of American populism. Most Democrats, after all, persist in embracing populism as it existed in the early part of the last century - that is, strictly as a function of economic inequality. In this worldview, the oppressed are the poor, and the oppressors are the corporate interests who exploit them.
That made sense 75 years ago, when a relatively small number of corporations - oil and coal companies, steel producers, car makers - controlled a vast segment of the work force and when government was a comparatively anemic enterprise. In recent decades, however, as technology has reshaped the economy, more and more Americans have gone to work for smaller or more decentralized employers, or even for themselves, while government has exploded in size and influence. (It's not incidental that the old manufacturing unions, like the autoworkers and steelworkers, have been eclipsed in membership and political influence by those that represent large numbers of government workers.)
Since this transformation took place, a succession of liberal politicians - Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown, John Edwards - have tried to run for president on a traditionally populist, anti-corporate platform, with little success. That is because today's only viable brand of populism, the same strain that Ross Perot expertly tapped as an independent presidential candidate in 1992, is not principally about the struggling worker versus his corporate master. It is about the individual versus the institution - not only business, but also government and large media and elite universities, too.
And yet, and yet...
We just saw a financial reform bill get steadily better over a two-week debate on the floor of the Senate, because politicians lived in mortal fear of appearing to kow-tow to the big banks. We just saw a health care debate where the only time Democrats got any message traction at all was in a frontal assault on the insurance industry. We've seen a massive outpouring of anger at BP over the oil spill, with Republicans scurrying for cover when their ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee apologized to BP over Obama's mistreatment of them. We've seen a spring of big rallies all over the country against the big banks- in Chicago, in San Francisco, in Denver, in Kansas City, in North Carolina, on Wall Street itself and on K Street in Washington, DC.
Is the "only potent grassroots" populist movement on the right? Is populism for Democrats a dead strategy?
There's some chatter going on about the DNC/OFA's sudden interest in LGBT issues. The day after the House vote, I got an e-mail from OFA:
Adam --
This is big news: Yesterday, the full House of Representatives and the Armed Services Committee in the Senate voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
In his State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to end the law that denies gays and lesbians the right to serve their country. Now, we are closer than ever to making good on that promise.
The full Senate will soon start its debate on repeal. But some Republicans are digging in their heels. Senator John McCain said, "I'll do everything in my power" to block a vote. And Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker called the repeal bill "a major mistake" -- announcing that the GOP plans to filibuster.
We can defeat those who'd stand in the way of history. But we must show our senators that Americans -- in every state -- overwhelmingly support repeal.
Stand with the President and join the pledge to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Stand with the President: Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Add your name.
From the Recovery Act to health reform to Wall Street reform, one by one President Obama is delivering on his campaign promises. And, now -- if we can overcome Republican obstruction -- we have a chance to deliver on another: bringing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to an end.
As the President has said, this is about more than just living up to his word. We must end this law because "it's the right thing to do."
Any policy that punishes brave men and women who step forward to serve their country simply for being who they are isn't just misguided -- it's discrimination.
That's why President Obama didn't just campaign on ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; he made it a priority. And it's why it's now a matter of how and when -- not if -- we will repeal this law.
But as the Republicans prepare to block a vote on this historic legislation, we must do all we can to help deliver on the President's promise.
Add your name to the pledge today -- and then please pass it on:
http://my.barackobama.com/Repe...
Thanks,
Mitch
Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
Then, yesterday, one marking Pride month (June) and trumpeting the Administration's accomplishments on LGBT issues:
Friend --
I wanted to make sure you saw this note from Governor Kaine. This Pride Month, the Democratic Party wants to hear from every American committed to the struggle for LGBT equality.
We've made great strides since President Obama took office -- and we're so close to one more big accomplishment in repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
But our work is far from done -- and I'm looking forward to fighting alongside you in the months ahead.
Today marks the beginning of Pride Month -- a time not just to remember the brave Americans who stood up to hate and discrimination at the Stonewall Inn 41 years ago, but a time to stand with those who are committed to that same fight today.
LGBT Americans have helped build the Democratic Party into what it is today. And, as a leader of the party, I'm proud of our role in the struggle for equality.
That's why it's important to me -- and to the future of this party -- that we hear from you.
Take a moment to share your thoughts with us this Pride Month.
At times the pace of progress has not been as fast as some -- myself included -- would like. And, while equality cannot be achieved overnight, the President and our Democratic leaders in Congress have made important strides over the past 16 months to address barriers that LGBT Americans face.
-- Last year, we passed the Matthew Shepherd & James Byrd, Jr., Federal Hate Crimes Act -- which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity and became the first federal law to provide protections for transgender Americans.
-- In April, the President issued a directive, making critical changes to federal regulations and allowing gay and lesbian Americans to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners.
-- And now we are on the verge of living up to President Obama's pledge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The House just passed historic legislation to end this discriminatory policy, and the full Senate is getting ready to vote in the coming months.
But we are not satisfied. And we are not finished.
We must remain committed to making greater strides toward the fundamental American principle of equality.
Make your voice heard:
http://my.barackobama.com/Prid...
Thanks, and happy Pride Month,
Governor Tim Kaine
Chairman
Then today, I got another e-mail, which was probably just a "bump" e-mail on the DADT one because I didn't open the first (it was forwarded from a friend):
Adam --
I wanted to make sure you saw the message from Mitch below. The House's vote on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a huge moment -- for our movement and our country.
But this fight is just getting started.
The Senate will take up this issue soon, and there are Republicans pledging to block a vote from even taking place.
Polls show that 78 percent of the country agrees that it's time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but opponents of reform aren't getting the message. Can you sign on to help us show that Americans overwhelmingly support repeal?
Add your name:
http://my.barackobama.com/DADT...
Thanks,
Yohannes
Yohannes Abraham
Political Director
Organizing for America
Original Message
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm fairly cynical about it all. The reason is partly because of how OFA and the Obama administration mishandled the No On 1 issue to the point of going out of its way to avoid it (see here and here), not to mention hasn't done much on other fronts. The other part is the DADT e-mail just comes across as a basic, almost shameless list-building, asking me to sign a pledge stating "I proudly stand with the President for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I noticed two things about this. One is that it came the morning after the vote, so the cynical part of me says it's just shamelessly capitalizing on enthusiasm for the Democrats finally doing something awesome on DADT repeal (after many of you threatened a breakup in our open letter to the Democrats late last month). It's kind of like the guy who comes to the victory party after barely lifting a finger to help during the fight.
The other is the timing. The DADT e-mail came a day after the highest hurdle in this fight- SASC and House floor votes. While full Senate repeal still isn't certain, I'm all of a sudden being asked to sign this pledge after the two biggest votes? It did not go unnoticed, by the way, that there were no e-mails of these types before the two toughest votes on this. Where was OFA then? So I'm not exactly the degree of excited that some colleagues are. The Pride month action appears to actually be a little more sincere, asking me to submit a comment that will be "hand-delivered" to Gov. Kaine. I'm crossing my fingers that the comments submitted will actually be read, but am not holding a lot of hope.
The less cynical side of me accepts that any attention is still attention, and hopeful that if there is a great return on these e-mails, that OFA will choose to mobilize members on future actions. Low response rates are one way of telling organizations whether their members care about an issue. So because I think it's worth doing for that reason, and partly because I'm curious, I submitted a comment. And I'm overall glad it's being done- it sends a strong signal. We'll see how much action and mobilization actually follows in the months and years to come.
Being back home in the Midwest is always grounding. The most classic moment was a conversation in a restaurant with someone who was expressing anger at all incumbents and both parties who said to me "nobody is on our side."
That was the theme of yesterday's big day of political news. Three more establishment candidates in both parties were either beaten outright or forced into a runoff. More incumbents going down. Insurgents on the rise everywhere.
And speaking of being everywhere, the irony patrol must be utterly exhausted. While incumbents and establishment politicians are being slaughtered in every region and both parties, in conventions and primaries, politicians continue to make fools of themselves. What was Richard Blumenthal thinking? What was Mark Souder thinking? Oh, wait, thinking wasn't involved. Having an affair with a staffer who works with you on promoting abstinence-only videos is like something out of an Elmore Leonard novel, except funnier. But the irony award for the day doesn't even go to Souder, as tempting as that is: it goes to Mitch McConnell. As his hand-picked protégé was going down in flames to anti-establishment, anti-TARP bailout tea partier Rand Paul, McConnell was leading the Republicans in a desperate attempt to keep the financial reform bill from doing anything worse to his poor pathetic friends on Wall Street, all the while crying a river about how Elena Kagan wanted to hurt the free speech rights of big corporations. Politics doesn't get any better than this.
The tea partiers are wreaking their revenge at McConnell because he has deserted them in order to help Wall Street and other big corporations, just as Democratic primary voters are showing their disdain at incumbents at the same time. The bottom line is that voters are asking the age-old question "which side are you on" and finding that to their outrage, none of the politicians seem like they are on the side of angry voters. In order to have a prayer this fall, Democrats have to show the voters- both their base voters in the Rising American Electorate, and the swing voters in the working class who still don't have good jobs- that they are fighting for regular people, not the elite. When the Wall Street bailouts did not produce jobs as promised, voters' attitudes got set at the outrage level, and they still haven't been reset. It is time for Democrats to show which side they are on.
One friend of mine said to me this morning that "it's like most of our Democrats can't seem to read a poll." The New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections. The Massachusetts special election. The Utah Republican party conventions. The Mollohan party upset in West Virginia. Yesterday's results. How many wake-up calls do politicians need?
ACTION: Sign our open letter to the Dems on ENDA and repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell!
All across the blogopshere and offline too, anger has been simmering at both the likelihood of many Democrats to vote against a base constituency of their party- namely, gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people. Despite large majorities of the public supporting an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there has been failure to deliver on it. Markup on ENDA has been put off several times. There is still no vote scheduled. Lots of Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler are considering voting against it or say now is not the time, knowing full well we won't have a chance after the midterm. The Administration hasn't lifted a finger to help on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and even actively opposed Congressional repeal efforts via the Gates letter.
So, OpenLeft is joining with our friends at AMERICABlog, the Courage Campaign, and CREDO Action to write an open letter on behalf of the gay community to Dems who are considering throwing us under the bus. Click here to read and sign it.
You may have just received the following e-mail we sent out to our OpenLeft Action list:
Dear friend,
Ever feel like the relationship you once thought you had just isn't working out?
Yeah, I feel that way too.
About the Democratic Party.
In fact, I talked to some friends of mine at AMERICABlog, the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action, and found out that when it comes to the Democrats fighting for LGBT equality, they feel the exact same way. We all felt so strongly about it, we thought it was time to write a letter about it.
Click here to read our open letter. If it says just what you're feeling, sign your name onto it. We will deliver it to Democratic leadership.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/DearDemocrats
Adam Bink
OpenLeft.com
Please click here to sign onto the letter. We will deliver your signatures to Democratic Party leadership. This goes for straight allies out there too- we have to support each other.
It is still legal for me, as a gay man, to be fired in 29 states because I'm gay. For someone who is transgender, that goes up to 38 states. That's over half the Union. I also can't join the military. That needs to change this year, and it needs to start with moving ENDA and following through on promises to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And those have to start with the Democrats- it has to start with Dems like Heath Shuler taking a stand for LGBT people and it has to start with the Democratic leadership in Congress AND the White House.
Otherwise, as the title of this post suggests, this relationship isn't working out, and that will be apparent come November, as LGBT individuals all across the country are wondering where our fierce advocate is in the White House and when Congressional Democrats will keep their promises.
Click here to read and sign our open letter asking Dems to keep their promises and get it done.
Can the Republican Party reinvent itself and remain a relevant political force?
I don't think reinventing the Republican Party is a solution. The Republicans have to take responsibility for the mess we're in which began with Ronald Reagan's election and hop scotched from Bush to Bush presidencies leaving the country with a wrecked economy, 2 foreign wars, millions of illegal aliens, and astronomical debt.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wants to empower "radical centrists" to get the federal government's books to balance (among other things). He seems to believe that structural reforms to reduce the power of extreme liberals and conservatives would make budget-balancing possible. He touts nonpartisan redistricting, for example. Washington Post's Ramesh Ponnuru is for nonpartisan redistricting, too, for different reasons than Friedman.
"....it takes the administration more than a week to really get moving."
The NY Times thinks that President Obama has not responded aggressively enough to this spill. Let's be clear:
No way is this oil spill Barack Obama's fault.
The fault lies with the ideology and mores of the Republican party and its theory of government.
Their solution to this country's energy's future is to drill anywhere and everywhere.
In their theory of government, government has no right to control who, what, where and how the natural resources of this country or this planet are exploited or not exploited. Resources that are needed by us all and is needed to protect us all. Like my friend Jim Gilliam said in a private email, government is supposed to regulate corporate behavior not just be their willing partner/follower. This is a lesson that we all need to keep in mind, including the president.
In their theory of government, government regulation is inherently evil or at least counterproductive. So under George Bush etal, the only regulation in the Gulf has been self regulation.
This oil spill is the fault of Republican ideology.
The two biggest issues in the news of late are financial reform and immigration. Talk about contrasts: the richest and most powerful in society vs. the most outcast and oppressed. It is easy to figure out which side to be on.
I can't help reading the e-mails of Fabulous Fab and the testimony of the Goldman Sachs guys, and think of stories I read about immigrants like this powerful piece from Jill Richardson:
He grew up in Mexico, growing corn, peppers, onions, and other crops on his family's land. But after NAFTA passed, the corn in the grocery store became cheap. So cheap that it was cheaper than the corn his family produced. He couldn't sell his corn anymore, unless he sold it at a loss. Without a way to support his family, he had to come to America to work.
Others, he said, went to the cities in Mexico to work. But there, in the factories and sweatshops (often owned by foreign corporations), they still couldn't make enough to support their families. So they came to the United States too. None of them wanted to. They didn't want to leave their families, their friends, their culture, their way of life, and everything they knew. They had no choice.
Now, he lives in Immokalee, FL along with countless other farmworkers. Some are undocumented but many are here legally. This can happen to anyone, he said. Even slavery can happen to anyone - not just undocumented workers. In Immokalee, there have been several cases of modern day slavery in which farmworkers were threatened at gunpoint and held in captivity, forced to work in the fields. But even those who aren't slaves live in harsh conditions in Immokalee.
The workers all live within a 9 square block radius, surrounding a parking lot where they look for work before dawn each day. They live close to the parking lot because they can't afford any form of transportation besides walking or perhaps a bike. And because all of the workers need to live within these 9 square blocks, housing prices are high even though the housing conditions are horrific. One worker will share a rundown trailer with 7 to 14 others.
I've heard their description of their daily lives before, so he didn't repeat it. They wake up at 4am to go to the parking lot, where buses arrive representing each of the farms that employ farmworkers. The farmers aren't given regular jobs, so they don't know if they will have work ever day. The reason why they don't have regular jobs, he thinks, is so the employers can make the workers compete in a race to the bottom. The worker who is willing to work in the most degrading conditions for the least pay will be selected to work.
The buses choose their workers for the day, and then drive up to 2 hours away to the fields. There, the workers wait for the dew to dry (although they are not paid for their time as they do this) and then get to work picking tomatoes. They are paid according to the number of 35 lb buckets they fill with tomatoes. A worker must pick 2 tons of tomatoes to make $50 in a day. Real wages for this work have not risen in years. However, the number of employers has gone down as the farms consolidated, and I believe he told me that the price the farmers are paid for the tomatoes (out of which they pay their workers) has gone down.
I asked if the workers work on crops other than tomatoes. Oh yes, he said. Onions, watermelons, lettuce, citrus, potatoes, all kinds of crops. "And are the workers exposed to pesticides?" I asked. "Do they get sick?" Oh yes, he said. But it doesn't do them any good to run a campaign against the pesticides. Even if the pesticides were gone, the overall system of exploitation would still be in place.
At the end of the day, the workers have spent 14 hours working for little money and only to go home (lousy and crowded though their housing may be) and prepare to do it all again. On holidays, he told me, everyone leaves Immokalee to visit family but the farmworkers stay. He said it's as if everyone understands that the farmworkers don't have a right to go be with their families for holidays. And yet the abundance on everyone's family table at Thanksgiving is due to the work of the farmworkers. How ironic is it that the very people who produce our food can't afford food themselves?
You read stories like this man's, and it makes articles like the one that appeared in the WaPo over the weekend all the more appalling: the legislative debate on immigration keeps moving to the right. That is with eight more Democratic Senators than when immigration reform was last debated in 2007, 22 more Democratic House members, and the numbers of Latinos an ever higher share of the electorate. Democrats need to pull themselves together, do the right thing, and then confidently sell what they have done to the American people, not give in to the fear mongering.
Our government needs to decide which side it is on: Fabulous Fab or the hardworking immigrants trying to support their family. We know that the conservative view is to be on the side of Fab: selfishness is a virtue, greed is good, the invisible hand, let the lions eat the weak, and all that. They want to cut Fab's taxes and get government out of his way so that he can get the market to do its magic. Conservatives believe that if we just let Fabulous Fab do his fabulous thing, all our economic problems will be solved. He is a true hero of America for them, and God forbid if we tax him or regulate him or prosecute him for fraud.
Some of us, though, believe that government's better role is to be on the side of the homeowners who lost their homes and the workers who lost their jobs because of Fab's greed. And, yes, it should be on the side of that immigrant worker in Florida who lost everything he had in Mexico because of what we did on NAFTA, and now is here working 14 hours a day for $50 a day (if he's lucky).
If our government sides with Fabulous Fab over that immigrant in Immokalee, something is seriously wrong. I don't expect Republicans to understand that: Fabulous Fab is the superman of their Ayn Rand fantasy lives. But I do expect Democrats to get this choice right.
I for one am not surprised at the reports surfacing over the last twenty four hours that there have been attacks, threats and vandalism aimed at Democrats who voted in favor of health care reform. As of this morning there are ten such reported cases, including one that suggested Congressmen (D-MI) should drown himself. Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) had the windows of her hometown office broken by some unidentified projectile. There has also been a report of an attack on a Congressman's family member that if accurate, would constitute a federal crime. Having witnessed Congressmen and Senators being spit upon and subject to racial and homosexual slurs by anti-government fanatics this past weekend, why would anyone be surprised by this latest display of incivility?
Shortly after the inauguration of Barack Obama the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that an increase in domestic anti-government violence was a distinct possibility. This report was the subject of much derision from the Right at the time but consider what has happened since then. Since the election of Barack Obama we have had a guy in Pittsburg kill policemen because he was angry that the government was now "Run by Jews" and that it would "take his guns away". We had a guy kill a doctor who performed abortions and then try to frame himself as a patriot in so doing. Sorry but murder is not patriotic. We had a murder at the Holocaust Museum by an individual who when captured said: "This is how you'll get my guns from me". Another anti-government zealot crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin Texas as if that would in some way actually contribute to the abolition of the agency. In reality, all that this action accomplished was the killing of an innocent man. Only the Pentagon subway stop shooting can legitimately be classified as the work of a mentally incapacitated person, regardless of his anti-government rant. All summer long we had to watch the farcical spectacle of Tea Party patriots playing minuteman by bringing loaded weapons to rallies while holding signs that suggested it was time for a second American Revolution. There are many who will read this and try to make an argument that political violence is now somehow justified, alluding to some sort of Revolutionary War fantasy. There has been all manner of infatuation with ideas of an armed "citizens revolt"; a military coup, even talk of an attempt on the life of the President, all of it being nothing more than the pipe dream of people who have now become political dead enders. It is to be noted by all that these far right fanatics have been aided and abetted in their dangerous fantasies by the reckless rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the professional political entertainers on the far right who masquerade as legitimate political commentators.
The Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) has already issued a statement condemning violence on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is surely commendable as no informed observer of American politics would for a moment believe that the G.O.P. is in favor of such a thing. But I would also urge Congressman Boehner to direct his comments to some in his own party, like Michele Bachmann (R-MN) or those like her who have a history of incendiary anti-government rhetoric in their political track record. When an elected official engages in blatantly reckless and inflammatory behavior it only serves to stoke up the sentiments of those on the far right fringe and can serve, in their minds, as a "call to action." In his assessment of the Republican debacle that has arisen from the passage of health care reform, the veteran conservative commentator David Frum observed: "We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible... So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, its mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, its Waterloo all right: ours." The degree to which increasing levels of political violence detracts or derails the message of the Republican Party in the future is unknowable at this time. But for an organization that is polling the lowest favorability numbers in its history, it is just one more reason for people to disregard the G.O.P. message on Election Day and one more problem the Republican Party can do without.
There will be those on the Right who will issue the counter argument that all one need do is to look back to the sixties and you will find plenty of violence perpetrated by the left. Some will conjure up the various red scares of the past and say that there has been more than on instance in American history where Communists in labor unions and among university professors sought to overthrow or subvert the American way of life. But you can tally up all of the left wing violence in the history of this country and you won't put a dent in the death toll from the Oklahoma City Bombing, an act perpetrated by a violently anti-government fanatic. It is for that reason that it is now the patriotic duty of every American to stand up to the fanatics on the far right, be it at political rallies, on the streets, in the blogs, by calling in to talk radio, by text messaging the Glenn Beck show, etc., or by writing to the media organizations that sanction such programming and registering you opposition to this virulent rhetoric that only serves to fuel politically driven violence and intolerance. The next time some right wing crackpot tells you that he and his compatriots are going to "take back their country" ask them from whom, the people who voted in the majority for change. It is time for Progressives to stand up to thugs and fanatics of any stripe, be they far to either the left or right, and to no longer tolerate threats of violence on the part of those who having lost out in the political arena, have chosen to attempt change through extra legal means.
In an interview following the attack on her office, Congresswoman Giffords said that America was a beacon around the world because we create change via the ballot box and not through political violence and intimidation. In thinking back upon much of the rhetoric from the right that has surrounded the advent of the Obama Administration, I can not help but to recall the warning that Sinclair Lewis made back in the 1930s: "If Fascism ever comes to the United States it will be wrapped in the flag and borne upon a crucifix". In spite of the fact that the country was in a far more perilous position then than it is now, Lewis' words were as relevant today as they were in the midst of the Great Depression and they should be on the minds of every true American patriot.
There are two things that are sucking all the life out of that surge of hope so many people felt when Obama came to office. The first is the perception that, early on, Obama chose to help rescue the big banks but has been more passive when it comes to creating new jobs for people, a perception which, while unfair in some regards, is reinforced by record profits and bonuses last year for the big banks we rescued while unemployment is stuck around 10%.
The second is that the legislative process always seems like it follows the same depressing pattern: Obama proposes a legislative package that makes some concessions to industry but is pretty decent legislation overall; the House then makes some other concessions to industry and passes a more compromised version of what Obama had laid out; the Senate then gets stuck for a very long time and then tries to break the logjam by making massive compromises to industry lobbyists, but even that doesn't seem to get the deal done. Everyone who ever cared about the issue and making real change gets depressed. Rinse and repeat.
Unfortunately, both of those problems in terms of dousing any excitement level about the Obama agenda are coming to a head on financial reform. Both the general public and the progressive base of the Democratic Party feel like the big banks have already gotten way too much help and now Chris Dodd comes out with a bill that seems to have given a huge amount away to the big bank lobbyists. As Simon Johnson put it:
The lobbyists did their job a long time ago. Treasury sent up a weak set of proposals Secretary Geithner apparently felt that to do otherwise would be just to seek punishment for past wrongdoings; there is too little concern at the top levels of this administration regarding what comes next. And Senator Dodd was pushed hard by various interests to weaken all potentially sensible proposals including anything that would bring greater transparency and safety to the derivatives market.
But of course even all the bad ideas Dodd put in his bill to please the big banks didn't actually win over a single Republican vote, just as all of Max Baucus gifts to health industry didn't deliver any Republican floor votes for the health reform bill. Now when you start to look at the details of Dodd's bill, just like with the health care bill, you will find some very good things to like, enough that a great consumer advocate like Elizabeth Warren decided to give it some modest support. Here's the problem though: if you are trying to get people excited about your reform agenda, and they are too busy debating with themselves over whether to even support the bill, you have a big, big political problem.
What it feels like is that you are breaking faith with the people who put you in office. Coming out with this kind of highly compromised bill on your single best issue for the fall elections is how you tick off both your base and angry independents at the same time. This is how Democrats will get themselves destroyed in the 2010 elections.
The Democratic Party needs to pick a fight, draw a line in the sand, and dare the Republicans to filibuster. This issue is the one to do it on, and right now is the time to do it. Lets debate whether the Federal Reserve should get a lot of new power. Lets debate whether to start breaking the big banks up. Let the Republicans be on the other side of those issues (and let the Democrats who are friends with the big bankers join them if they want). The Democrats need to have a full-scale fight on these issues, for the sake of their electoral fortunes in the fall, and the sake of their souls.
Hi all. Welcome back to The One About....'s special weekend feature, The One About Book Club. For those of you who are new readers to The One About...., let me recap for you. On the weekends I write in depth about a book that I feel is of significance to Progressives, looking at one or more chapters per post. For the complete introduction to the project you can go here. My pick to inaugurate this project is The 48 Laws Of Power. So far I've offered an introduction and overview of the book, and written about Chapters(or in keeping with the tone of the book Laws) 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6. So I bet you can guess what comes next.
I am less concerned with party politics than I am with candidates, but rarely do I see entries in support of candidates where one political party was not promoted to the exclusion of all others. And other than the League of Women voters, I don't find many sites where information is given about all candidates running in a given race. Unfortunately, in all too many instances, the candidates I see named are people from the business sector, and their interests are all too often not those of the public. Even independent candidates tend to come from private business interests rather than public interests. It was heartening, therefore, to read at USelections.com that there is an independent candidate from the left who is running for governor and who isn't culled from the pools of Big Business. His name is Dennis Spisak, and he is running for governor this year. You can check out his web site by clicking this LINK.
Other candidates for governor are incumbent and Democrat Ted Strickland, Republican and businessboy John Kasich, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. president in 2000, and building contractor Ken Matesz on the Libertarian Party ticket.
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox