Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe swirl of the primary season is intoxicating and the media love it. If the ratings records set by the recent political debates are any indication, the ongoing primary battle may yet save cable TV. "Super Tuesday" -- the night that was supposed to wrap everything up -- didn't (for either party). Clearly, this extended nomination contest is getting people excited, but will that excitement translate into substantive change -- for Democrats in particular? The past offers some hard-knocks lessons worth thinking about.
Give this long primary season credit: It has, at least, turned that overused word "change" from a bumper slogan pooh-poohed by all knowledgeable pundits into a fact-based phenomenon. In the closest thing the nation has seen to a countrywide primary, first term Senator Barack Obama overcame Hillary Clinton's double-digit leads in major states and national polls to win a majority of states on February 5th and draw into a tight battle over the delegate count. The two candidates closed out the evening with their spinmeisters already talking up Beltway Tuesday -- the next catch-phrase friendly multiple-primary day -- while promising more debates. Now, their operatives are off to Ohio for a March 4th primary that everyone assumes will be crucial.
The chance to be seen and heard in more than just a handful of quirky early-primary states has already made a striking difference for the Illinois Senator, who was the clear underdog when he entered the race. "What was a whisper has turned into a chorus," Obama told his hometown crowd in Chicago on Tuesday night.
But a whisper, many would like to know, of what? For more than thirty years, Democratic voters like those pouring out of their homes to get involved this primary season have doggedly trooped to their polling places with no expectation of having an actual impact. Young voters, poor voters, urban voters, anti-war voters, women, people of color, lesbian and gay (LGBT) folk, immigrants, the Democratic party's so-called base -- would turn out - and then be sent home. Come the general election, Democratic candidates typically tacked right, ignoring those reliable, old blue-base voters. Thanks to the tyranny of the two-party system, they could remain confident that the base wasn't going to defect to the -- gasp! -- ever-more rightward-tacking GOP. And mostly, they were on the mark.
For Democratic base-dwellers, in normal times there was only one party season when anyone wanted to hear from them -- this one. Primaries are the one period in the election cycle when contenders suddenly seek to curry favor with the Party's most activist -- and progressive -- part. That's one reason a primary season this long is significant; but, for those voters, will it make any difference at the level of policy? The most positive answer is perhaps.
Fuelled by frustration with the way the Party's been conducting its business and propelled by disgust at the policies of George W. Bush, base-level Party activists, with help from liberal bloggers and others, have already pulled off an organizing feat that's changed the face of the presidential race. Helped by online databases and social-networking software, volunteers can have new impact. Unpaid volunteers have been building attendance at local meetings through their own voter-initiated websites in red and blue states alike. The most significant result so far has been the record turnout. Democratic turnout was up 100% in Iowa and South Carolina, while Georgia witnessed its biggest turnout in a primary since 1992.
The presence of a nominee who was once himself a grassroots organizer and recognizes the value of such work, state by state, has had its own transformative effect. Altogether, grassroots organizers have made the candidacy of Obama, at one time a long-shot nominee, more than viable. And that's pushed Party veteran Clinton whose campaign-style is naturally more top-down and disciplined to invest her resources heavily in "field." Before this Tuesday, the candidates were both openly competing for the label "grassroots." "We've put together a grassroots campaign," Hillary Clinton told a rally the Friday before Super Tuesday. "We will call one million Californians this weekend." Obama's northern Californian spokesperson told reporters: "We are running the biggest field campaign in California since Robert Kennedy in '68."
With the campaign continuing, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton must still compete for local support and influential endorsements. And, at the state level, that's good news for progressives. Party flacks and the traditional "black and blue" organizing machines of black churches and labor unions are no longer influential enough to turn out sufficient voters. Expanding their reach, both campaigns have been delving into non-traditional territory for community support. In South Carolina, the Obama campaign teamed up with barbers and the owners of beauty salons. The candidates are also competing for support from ethnic groups they never prioritized before -- Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans -- and everyone's competing over women and youth.
Remember 1964
"This is a moment unlike any we've ever known," Obama said in his Super Tuesday night speech. In spirit, he may turn out to be right, but there are obvious echoes from the past. This is not the first time that the Democratic Party has seen an upsurge in turnout, a newly expanded electorate, and a new generation of trained and talented organizers coming on the scene. In fact, 2008 bears a haunting resemblance to 1964, the last time the Party's political maps were remade.
Keelan Sanders is executive director of the Mississippi Democratic Party in Jackson, Mississippi. Until recently, Sanders was the only person on its payroll and the Party's "headquarters" (a renovated family home on a residential street) was open only part of the time; no presidential candidate ever came to visit. In 2004, isolated Democratic voters paid out of their own pockets to produce Kerry/Edwards yard signs. Today, thanks to an investment of funds from the Democratic National Committee, Sanders has a fulltime staff -- a beneficiary of DNC chair Howard Dean's drive to revitalize the party in all fifty states. When I asked him why he stuck with the Party so long, solo, Sanders responded quick-as-a-flash: "Because of my grandmother."
Sanders' grandmother was a member of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. In 1964, she risked her life to register African American voters in the Deep South; then, she carpooled her way to Atlantic City, New Jersey, as a Freedom Party delegate in hopes of taking a seat from Mississippi's all-white delegation at the Democratic National Convention. There, at the height of the civil rights era, she and the vast majority of Freedom Party delegates were locked out.
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Council (SNCC) organizer Hollis Watkins, who still lives in Mississippi, remembers believing what he'd been told -- if black people registered enough voters, they'd be given a chance to unseat the state's pro-segregation delegation. "It was like being told to scale the walls to the roof of a building on fire, and doing it, and then realizing there were no supporting beams beneath our feet," Watkins told me in 2006. "We wanted to believe it, we believed it, but we were naíve."
In 1964, the party of President Lyndon Baines Johnson wanted to talk about civil rights -- even sign the Civil Rights Act -- and position itself as the party of desegregation, but it wasn't ready to fight desegregation in its own ranks. Not yet. After a bitter stand-off, the Democratic National Convention finally offered the Freedom Democratic Party's leader, Fanny Lou Hamer, a seat where she could observe the proceedings, but not vote.
Just four years later, the picture had shifted significantly. The Voting Rights Act was law and the southern delegations had been desegregated, but the power of the old party machine hadn't passed to the grassroots activists who'd forced the transformation. It remained bottled up at the top of the Party structure.
Rather than overhaul state-level infrastructures, Party leaders gradually made an end-run around them. That's partly why state parties like Mississippi's have been in such sad shape for so many decades. Among other changes, the party altered the rules of the nomination process (and the convention) to emphasize state-wide primaries -- now generally the norm -- taking power out of the hands of local party bosses. Advertising themselves via television, candidates could "run" campaigns by communicating directly with voters without the help of embedded, state-level movements.
Actually growing the Party's base seemed to scare the establishment. Whenever the Democratic National Committee appeared on the verge of launching a massive voter registration program, they backed off. Insiders who lived through the period recall how in the 1980s, when Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition showed that massive numbers of new Democratic voters could indeed be activated with just a little attention to the base, the Party's major donors refused to fund such an effort (allegedly for fear that any massive voter-registration drive would only push the Party into Jackson's hands).
Today's "outsiders" are once again working hard, organizing locally, and counting on being seated at their Party's table. Whoever the nominee may be, he or she is guaranteed to enter the general election stronger in terms of state-field operations and possible resources than any Democratic candidate in decades. In no small measure, it will be those "outsiders" the Party has to thank. When Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006, Eli Pariser, the director of the liberal mass membership group MoveOn.org, boasted of the Democratic Party, "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back." If a Democrat does indeed win in November (by no means a certainty), Pariser isn't going to be the only one with bragging rights -- or expectations.
Will the "Change" Election Be About Change?
The key questions are: Will progressive activists use the continuing primary race to raise solid policy demands about peace, justice, the environment, and healthcare -- and will whoever turns out to be the Democratic candidate actually listen? Let's keep in mind that those hopeful base voters aren't doing all this work simply in order to get a change of personnel in the White House. It's change in their lives and their communities, as well as in the country at large that they need and want. Even a shift of power in both chambers of Congress in November 2006 has brought them precious little of that.
If history offers any hints, real change relies on movements very much like the one that, however inchoately, has slowly been forming, I believe, just beyond our sight in these last years. This is, of course, exactly the part of our political landscape that our media covers least well and least often (and maybe those ranks of new organizers are actually lucky for that).
It's often forgotten that the conservative movement, sidelined by President Johnson's smashing defeat in the 1964 election of the original conservative presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, spent the next decade and a half largely out of the limelight, building up its forces to challenge the Republican Party establishment. Through the use of the new technology of that moment -- especially direct-mail fundraising -- and the mobilization of new ground troops (evangelical churches) through cheap media (talk radio and cable television), they found ways for outsider candidates to mount effective primary challenges and rattle incumbents, while they moved, increasingly triumphantly, from the local to the state to the national level.
With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the Right had a storyteller in the White House who could re-tell America's tale their way. His narrative threw out the 1960s and 1970s version of an all-in-the-same-boat society. It declared government the enemy and asserted that individuals (and more importantly corporations) unfettered from government regulations were what made the country great.
Reagan himself didn't deliver all that much beyond that. It was in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years that the Right secured the tax cuts, deregulation, and roll back of government programs they had sought so long. Eventually, they did secure many of their goals exactly because, in the 1980s, the gang that brought Reagan to office didn't rest on their laurels, having elected a President. They built their movement and mobilized every last resource, in season and out, to change the national discourse and shift public opinion inside the Beltway, in the media, and in the states.
Asked in South Carolina last month which of the Democratic contenders he thought Dr. King would have endorsed, Senator Obama responded, "He wouldn't endorse any one of us." That's because King was building a movement meant to hold all candidates -- and Presidents -- to account. It was that movement which made it impossible for LBJ to try, however feebly, to accommodate Fanny Lou Hamer at the 1964 convention, that movement which literally changed the faces in politics, that movement which made the candidacy of Barack Obama possible, as the later Feminist movement would Hillary Clinton's. It's that movement the Reagan-Right learned from so well and today's progressives would do well not to forget.
The swirl of the primary season is intoxicating -- and the media love it. But real change happens on a different timetable. If you're looking for estimated times of arrival, the problem is: We don't know that timetable yet.
Laura Flanders is the author of Blue Grit: Making Impossible, Improbable, Inspirational Political Change in America, just out in paperback from Penguin Books, and the host of RadioNation on Air America Radio. For more information on her click here.
Copyright 2008 Laura Flanders
38 Comments so far
Show AllBarack Obama would make a wonderful used car salesman. I'll give him that.
There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html
The New Dream Team Ticket
Obama & Harold Ford Jr.
Wonder how this will play out in November 2008
I am heartened to note that, even when an article is written well, there are those who understand the truth of American politics.
With a campaign for the office of the Presidency costing well in excess of a hundred million dollars and taking two or more years to finish there is very little hope of electing someone free of the controls that fundraising brings. Whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, or Senator McCain for that matter, wins the thing the real winners will be Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, General Electric etc. The real losers, of course, will be you and I.
Unless and until the electorate focusses upon this very real issue of campaign finance reform ( and I certainly do not mean that travesty McCain/Feingold), shortens the cycle to about two months ( as does France for example) and makes airtime and print time obligatory free of charge we will elect those who fail to represent we the people and are bought and paid for in advance.
While we are at it we could eliminate lobbying as a career path for the legislators as well.
This is Flanders reconfiguration of the status quo. Nothing more nothing less. Corporations got just what they want. They will run two corporate owned candidates against each other. One from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican Party. Either way they win and we lose. Wake up.
Give this long primary season credit: It has, at least, turned that overused word "change" from a bumper slogan pooh-poohed by all knowledgeable pundits into an empty marketing phrase to be repeated ad nauseum in place of a concrete platform. Along with generalizations like "hope" and "green."
Yes, a CommonDreams hosted debate would be really good but it would have been better when there were more candidates in the running.
Perhaps Common Dreams could host a Debate for the democratics. Perhaps Amy Goodman could special it on her program.
We could all submit our questions for 'real' answers.
You know how Obama likes to throw around the word "hope" and not really attach any meaning to it? Does it remind anyone else beside me of the time when that little texan started to throw around the word "freedom". Scary if you ask me. A bunch of neo-american-christian-zombies chanting "hope" over and over instead of "freedom". I think im going to be sick!
and... What the fuck are superdelagates and why do THEY get to pick the candidate? Does my vote really not count for shit?
The System's broke guys, it doesnt need reform, it needs replacing. Hammurabi's Codex, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence were all top guys looking out for themselves and accidently got "We the People" all fired up. We're talking about some 4,000 years of top guys making end runs around you and me. At this point in time there isn't a lack of information about the mryiad abuses perpetrated on citizens in every aspect of life: healthcare, housing, education, earnings/pensions, stalking/ surveillance and the psychological fallout of this abuse. What's missing is a conversation about what to do. How to actually inject "we the people" into the current process that has hijacked our lives.
I agree with Daniel David. When Obama surpasses Hillary in delegates she should step aside and endorse Obama.
Absolutely nothing will unite Conservatives around McCain in November more than Hillary Clinton as the democrat nominee.
Her NO vote against Landmines...her YES vote on Most Favored Trade Status with China, her Bush/Cheney appeasing YES vote on the saber-rattling Kyl-Lieberman Ammendment calling Iran's Revolutionary Guard "TERRORISTS" (hello AIPAC) and her enthusiastic support for the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2002-2006) cements her Republican-lite status with anyone who has been paying attention...I promised Molly Ivins I would NEVER vote for Hillary...I voted for Obama here in San Francisco (he won S.F. and Marin but lost California)...if Hillary uses her insider Superdelegates to defeat Obama at the coIvention she will alienate new voters and hand the Presidency to 100 years in Iraq John McCain!
"Super Tuesday" — the night that was supposed to wrap everything up — didn't (for either party).
Super Bowl Tuesday wasn't supposed to wrap erverything up. The elections these days are rigged to be tight races to keep the attention of the rabble fixed on the TV where the SUV showrooms are featured.
COMarc thank you for your comments
you are correct about nazi numbers, but the ascent from 'splinter' group to 1/3rd of the german electorate occurred rapidly (less the 130,000 1929 to second largest party 1930).the alliances they made with other political parties foresaw their opportunity to seize power. their ascent was contingent on a severe economic crisis; while looming here in america it hasn't descended upon us yet- 25% unemployment. it's interesting in the democratic party the working poor have been supporting clinton, if the economy deteriorates rapidly- it increases the chances of a demagogue rising to power (b clinton). but it's tricky because the general electorate is so far to the right of readers of articles at commondreams. we can vote 3rd party or not participate - in my mind this facilitates the clinton political dynasty or suggests more dire consequences if mccain/whoever is elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_party
"By 1929 the party had 130,000 members.[5]Despite these strengths, the Nazi Party might never have come to power had it not been for the Great Depression: By 1930 the German economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures. The SPD and the KPD parties were bitterly divided and unable to formulate an effective solution; this gave the Nazis their opportunity, and Hitler's message, blaming the crisis on the Jewish financiers and the Bolsheviks (also controlled by the Jews) resonated with wide sections of the electorate. At the September 1930 Reichstag elections the Nazis won 18.3 percent of the vote and became the second-largest party in the Reichstag after the SPD"
question which party in america resembles the spd of germany and which party in america has large voting blocks, with rhetoric to match, that cater to splinter groups that resemble nazis (listen to romney)? jesus camp a great film that addresses one of these splinter groups (again huckebee is the more natural analogy to hitler).
about the national journal,
"both are considered left of center in the senate - even if it isn't left enough for our tastes- (national journal: obama 1, hillary 16)"
your right again. i agree that a journal that represents democratic voices is not 'progressive' per se. i'd say the dem party is to the right of my own feelings about politics. but to the vast majority of americans, including many who do not participate ,who are not progressive in their stances on issues; dems are to the left, and people like leahy and sanders are radicals (oh right sanders is a socialist).
i would have preferred a filibuster over war funding that would have lasted weeks. i don't like obama or clinton's unwillingness to use their voices in the senate, the symbolism would have been inspiring and could have increased participation mass demonstrations against war. reid/pelosi have both endorsed clinton, no Comarc the senate has not appeared liberal in the last year, the dem party is a simple majority that oversees disparate people (again the edwards example) who represent different electorates. without a clear majority (more than 51 votes in senate) there will be no traction on the war or fundamental redistribution of wealth. yeah your right the leadership tactics have been ineffective. i also see obama/clinton as moderate centrists, i think there is more promise with obama based on character issues. although i agree the MNC's have considerable input over policy issues.
mccain judges would be more detrimental to USA than obama/clinton judges...
"they would be more likely to put pressure on the new dem pres. "
I keep seeing this nonsense. Exactly how do you expect to 'put pressure' on a new dem pres who just got your votes.
Between elections, they don't give a damn what you think. In 2004, I joined the CO caucuses as a Kucinich supporter. On top of that, the caucus passed resolutions opposing the Iraq war and calling for immediate withdrawal, and also supporting the beginnings of impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. The delegates who went on to the State convention continued to push these and had enough support that I think these were all passed at the state level.
Also, Dem voters who are polled would have strongly supported both positions in polling data. Almost all Dem voters oppose the war. And with some 45% of all voters calling for impeachment proceedings to begin, its a sure bet that a big majority of Dem voters support that too.
Protests against the war have been organized in DC. These typically also have lobbying days attached where people try to go lobby their elected reps. There have been moves to try to demonstrate support for impeachment also to the reps.
What impact does this have on the Dems in DC?
The Dem party remains committed to the war. The Dem Senator and the Reps from CO all refuse to take effective action against the war despite the resolutions passed by the state party. I've got one local rep that talks nice against the war when pushed, but otherwise ignores the issue and does nothing effective about it. The Dem party has refused to back or proceed with impeachment. The Dem leadership is clear and constant in guaranteeing that war funding will continue and that there will be no impeachment.
So, how exactly do you expect to 'pressure the next Dem pres'? What effective action can you take?
The key is that the top levels of the Dem party only care about what their wealthy donors want, and they only really act in the interests of those donors. Occaisionally we hear what they think of the rest of us that are trying to pressure them into backing what the vast majority of Dem voters want when they get caught calling us 'idiot liberals'. Pelosi is a key example in this. When people were trying to 'pressure' her into taking some action on impeachment by protesting near her, she publicly complained that she couldn't get them arrested for loitering and removed.
The only 'pressure' you can wield is by building an effective political movement against them. If you line up every four years and vote for them, you can not pressure them at all. They've already got your vote. And since you can't contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to their party, they don't give a damn what you think.
If you want to pressure them, do it in a language they understand. Cause them to lose elections. Threaten their ability to stay in office. If you let that opportunity pass, then you have no ability to pressure them between elections. If you demonstrate political power by causing them to lose elections, then you have a way to pressure them.
So, for instance, lets just say the left made a concerted effort to back Cindy Sheehan and kick Pelosi out of Congress. Then, we could march into Congress between now and the next election and tell Senators and Representatives 'end this war now, or you're next'. Having just kicked the most powerful member of Congress out of the Congress in the last election, we could deliver a very credible threat that they would indeed be next. Thus we'd have the ability to pressure them. BTW, this is exactly how AIPAC has gained its influence.
But if all you do is line up and vote every time for the lessor of two evils. If all you do is put Dems into office and then hope you can pressure them, you ain't going to get nowhere. The track record of this last Congress says that loud and clear. Most the Dem party members and most of the American people have been trying to 'pressure' them to end the war ever since the last election. How's that working out?
"national journal: obama 1, hillary 16"
Of course, the fact that this is a mag committed to the Dem party shouldn't be ignored. And any candidate rankings by any group should always be treated with sceptcism and a careful eye. That particular article bothered me because there was a great deal of hot air about the atmosphere of the race, and very little specifics of the ranking.
In the one case where they gave specifics, my BS meters went to full tilt. In that case, both Senators got credit for being 'liberal' in opposing the war by voting for the BS bill that Harry Reid put forward. Reid deliberately pursued a strategy he knew would fail by putting this into a separate bill that could be vetoed. In doing so, he created a free vote where Senators could create a fake impression of being opposed to the war while voting for a bill that everyone knew would do nothing to end the war because it would be vetoed and the veto couldn't be overridden.
Meanwhile, I saw nothing in that article that talked about being 'liberal' for supporting a filibuster to block war funding, or that took any points away from being 'liberal' for not supporting a filibuster to block war funding. That was the real chance to end the war. 41 Senators could have blocked the spending of our tax dollars for more war, death and destruction. Neither Obama nor Clinton supported that effort. Instead, they only supported the phony effort that everyone knew was designed to fail from the beginning.
You have to watch Congressional voting records and rankings based on this. Typically there might be several votes on an issue. Those paying close attention will know some are important and some are merely symbolic. Depending on which votes are then compiled into rankings like this, you can be very tricky on how you create a ranking.
An example of how the votes work. On both the right-wing pro-corporate Supreme Court nominations that Bush has put onto the court, the key vote was the vote on cloture to end a filibuster. Again, 41 Senators could have joined together to block these right-wing judges from the Supreme Court. That was the key vote that might have succeeded in keeping them off the court. Once that failed, the vote on confirmation was purely symbolic. Everyone knew that the Republicans and the DINOS had the votes to put the rightwingers they wanted onto the court. So, what you saw was Dems voting to end the filibuster, thus ensuring the right-wingers got onto the court, then casting a purely symbolic vote against confirmation. I know my local DINA (Salazar D-CO) did that. Then you have to be very careful in future campaigns and rankings as the people who actually supported putting the right-wingers on the court will point to only the symbolic confirmation vote and pretend they opposed. Or a set of 'rankings' like this will only look at the symbolic vote and give people credit for being 'liberal' when they really supported putting the right-wingers on the court.
Ask yourself this basic question. Has the Senate seemed 'liberal' to you in the last year or so? To me, the answer is no. Then, the key line in this article about these rankings (which was up here on CD if you want to look for it) was that both Obama and Clinton pretty much followed the party line and didn't do much to shift the Senate from its course.
Just a small point of fact, but by the time Hitler became Chancellor in the early thirties, the Nazis were not a small, minority '3rd party'. In the last election before he was named Chancellor, the Nazi Party got more votes than any other German party. He didn't get a 50% majority, but at around 40%, there Nazis were the party that got more votes than any other. The same for the one contested election after Hitler was first named Chancellor. The overall percentage dropped a bit into the high 30% range, but the Nazi Party still got more votes than any other.
The Nazis were a party that was well-funded by corporate and elite wealthy interests in Germany, and they invented a lot of what are standard campaign practices today. They developed a modern style of campaign advertising on the radio and in newspapers (the mass media of the day), and modern styles of having a candidate travel the country by plane and land at an airport, give a canned campaign speach, create a photo op and fly on. All of these are important techniques still used today by well financed campaigns that want to mislead people.
None of this was sudden and new in the early 30's. After Hitler got out of prison from his putsch attempt in the early 20's, he swore he'd get power legally and he'd been building this party and making alliances with wealthy backers to create this. Don't confuse the image of the Nazi party being a small party in the backroom of a pub, which was true in the early 20's, with the political machine that had been built by the time Hitler took power in the early 30's.
Shada February 8th, 2008 5:46 pm
good points but i don't believe it's fair to project a stereotype of the people who are attracted to sites like CD. being an activated citizen and being capable of political discourse are not mutually exclusive. many here are activists or academics who have raised consciousness in practical ways - by engaging in civil disobedience, exercising their 1st amendment rights, taking time out of their lives to organize and engage in action in the streets - not from the comfortable environment of a democratic 4th of july picnic-. i am an independent, who for the first time in my life had to declare party allegiance to have a voice in determining the presidential candidate in the caucus {the state i lived in previously mailed me a ballot of my choice (dem/rep), but i didn't have to publicly display my preference in front of die hard democrats, frankly i was disappointed in my experience at the dem caucus - the consciousness in the room was not very sophisticated,} i will continue to see myself as an independent who supports a particular democratic presidential candidate -obama- for practical, personal, and idealistic reasons. i will talk to democrats, to encourage them to see a different perspective, that's why i protested at my congressman's office with 100's of other people on a cold autumn night in 2003 it's why i was in the streets of seattle with 50,000 other people demanding recourse from elites. it's also why i write letters, distribute petitions and am comfortable talking about politics with people at work and on the street (remember the 2 american taboos religion/politics). i will vote for green/socialist candidates in local and state elections if i have an opportunity to, as i have for 20 years.
about engaging in esoteric political conversations and national elections. the reason why there's so much hoopla around the quad annual elections is it's the only time we (as a nation) vote collectively, it also determines which faction of the party will run the federal government for 4 years (one reason for all the media focus). the election is a barometer of the mood/feelings of a nation. it does deserve attention and it also reflects our dismal efforts to raise that consciousness.
vote your conscience................
please donate to kucinich and sheehan............
see you on the streets of denver......peace...............
"will it make any difference at the level of policy? The most positive answer is perhaps."
Face it Laura:
The most expensive primary election races in American history by far.
Corporate-backed candidates every one of them, including Obama.
America's progressives just buried on Super Tuesday, because progressive pundits like you refuse to focus on campaign spending limits.
I disagree that either Clinton or Obama can claim the grassroots organization title. That should go to DNC Chairman Howard Dean who several years ago stated they were going to put field organizers into every state and that these field organizers were going to listen to and defer to the local Democratic Party base. I am a Democratic committeewoman and I can attest to the effectiveness of Chairman Dean's strategy. I know its not popular at this blog for people to admit they're part of the evil party structure. Its so easy to either sit back and criticize or just step in when/if a presidential candidate inspires you. The rest of the time its a lot of hard drudgery work... getting nominating petitions signed for every local office holder, door to door outreach to new neighbors.... picnics, raffles, to raise funds.... Its so easy to criticize and wax philosophical but where are all these Progressives who want to take back their party when the "housework" of the party needs to get done?
thought provoking article, thank you.
i don't think there will be a change unless the dems capitalize on the mobilized new voters. if they don't (pick up say 10 seats in senate and 50 seats in the house) manifest seats in the congress the oligarchy/corporate power (represented by repubs and conservative dems) has a greater chance to subvert policy changes by gridlocking bills in the congress. this will happen if mccain is elected, except mccain has a very aggressive foreign agenda and the congress will have little control over his expanded imperial agenda (exxon-mobil). the dnc also takes their money but i doubt obama would be as aggresive as say mccain/powell or mccain/huckabee. i don't know i'm just guessing. also.......
if these new mobilized voters were educated about the policy/issues from the perspective of progressives (greens/socialists) they would be more likely to put pressure on the new dem pres. the new voters need to be approached in a non threating way (not you're a fucking idiot because of your voting record and your inability to understand MY positions). i don't see kiosks in my city manned by progressive activists approaching people in a friendly way about why progressive values are important. our government is a reflection of who we are as a people
(it's why edwards voting record was to the right of obama and clinton) it's incumbent upon us to change their perspectives. the masses will not just wake up and agree with the progressive left.
luckylefty February 8th, 2008 12:56 pm
"That is faith based politics, my fellow citizens. Blind faith based on nothing but words. Which sets you up for the whazzoo,.............That is what elects Adolf Hitler. "Of course he has to tell lies, he's running for office." Am I ringing any bells here?"
interesting twist of the word faith, two bells were ringing as i read your comments.
1 you haven't examined obama/clintons voting record. both are considered left of center in the senate - even if it isn't left enough for our tastes- (national journal: obama 1, hillary 16). there are 84 other senators who voted to the right of these candidates. it is not faith based politics,(believing x will cause y because i'm telling you so and you believe it -- in fact advocates for 3rd party solutions are much more naive and dreamy about how the society will be restructured after they assume power, with no record of achievement in the national legislature--
2 you haven't examined you modern german history lately. hitler arrived to power by aligning himself with the center candidate to achieve the equivalent of VP.
actually hitlers rise to power was a result of 3rd parties interacting with each other in a parliamentary system. the nazis were not one of 2 parties, they were a minority splinter group (believe me they didn't run on a unity black/white platform) they aligned themselves with hindenburg -the center right party- to gain control of the german government (although hindenburg resisted alignment w/ nazis until) once they had their foot in the door........
there was intense opposition (think of the 16 senators who opposed war on 2003)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic
"Hitler and the Nazis exploited the German state's broadcasting and aviation facilities in a massive attempt to sway the electorate, but this election — the last democratic election to take place until the end of the Third Reich twelve years later — yielded a scant majority of 16 seats for the coalition. At the Reichstag elections, which took place on 5 March, the NSDAP obtained seventeen million votes. The Communist, Socialist and Catholic Centre votes stood firm.
Hitler addressed disparate interest groups, stressing the necessity for a definitive solution to the perpetual instability of the Weimar Republic. He now blamed Germany's problems on the Communists, even threatening their lives on March 3. Former Chancellor Heinrich Bruning proclaimed that his Centre Party would resist any constitutional change and appealed to the President for an investigation of the Reichstag fire. Hitler's successful plan was to induce what remained of the now Communist-depleted Reichstag to grant him, and the Government, the authority to issue decrees with the force of law. The hitherto Presidential Dictatorship hereby was to give itself a new legal form.
On 15 March the first cabinet meeting was attended by the two coalition parties, representing a minority in the Reichstag: The Nazis and the DNVP led by Alfred Hugenberg (196 + 52 seats). According to the Nuremberg Trials this cabinet meeting's first order of business was how at last to achieve the complete counter-revolution by means of the constitutionally-allowed Enabling Act, requiring two-thirds parliamentary majority. This Act would, and did, bring Hitler and the NSDAP unfettered dictatorial powers."
there are echoes of the wiemer republic in contemporary us politics. the economy is heading for a severe recession. it's unlikely it will be felt by american workers before the end of the primary cycle. mike huckabee appeals to very reactionary elements, if he could finagle his way on the ticket with the old man (hitler/hindenburg) he could either inhert his legacy as the candidate in 2012 or if mccain checked out (literaly) huckebee would check in (VP to pres).
see you on the streets of denver.................
1964 happened because of a rebellion outside the control of the party bosses. The party bosses worked very hard, and succeeded, at blocking the Mississippi Freedom party from taking their seats at the Dem convention.
The rebellion grew in 1968. The party bosses still blocked it from changing the nature of power in the party and who were the Dem candidates. Thus you still had Dem presidents that were escalating the war in Vietnam, a Dem congress that was supporting that. This is why the rebellion was in the streets OUTSIDE the Dem convention in Chicago in 1968.
Only in 1972 did the rebellion change what happened in the party. The revulsion with the Vietnam war defeated the 'more of the same' candidates backed by the party bosses, and George McGovern won the nomination. That year, the rebellion moved from outside the convention to inside the convention. And the rebellion created a set of rules that changed the way the party worked into being a more democratic Democratic party.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter took advantage of this to win as an upstart against the candidates supported by the Dem machine. But that was the end of the rebellion. With the McGovern supporters out of power, they quickly re-wrote the party rules to make sure that such a grassroots, activist rebellion could never succeed again from inside the Dem party. The black leaders who'd been leading the civil rights rebellion from outside the party were instead now co-opted into the party, and that was the end of an independent black leadership that would challenge the Dem party.
From 1980 to the present, all we've seen is corporate sponsored party hacks leading and running on the party tickets. The rule changes made after the McGovern era was over have succeeded in making sure the party bosses stay firmly in power. And the black leadership has remained co-opted into the Dem party, and there's no real political force at all that's been able to carry on the fight that MLK was launching when he was assassinated ... that is to overturn the economic inbalance that was the result of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow. The corporate forces have been able to eliminate almost federal money and programs that were helping the black areas of the urban cities with no independent black leadership to oppose this and the co-opted Dem blacks bought into silence. The Dem party has returned to its state of the early 1960's of being the party of war and big defense budgets.
and like the majority of activists in the '60s, the writer pays little attention to the main feature of the political situation, i.e., the fact that the economic system is self destructing.
You have to view the upper levels of our Federal Government (the Sentate, the Presidency, the leadership in the House, the Federal Reserve and to some degree, but more servant to really, the Supreme Court) for what it is - an Oligarchy. It's the natural result of the maturation of our form of Republic/Democracy. It won't be reversed by any election or political party but the Oligarchy will not last and we'll slide towards a brief period facism or a kind of everyman for himself barely controlled chaos, followed by another violent revolution that will lead to god only knows what. The slide to a complete Oligarchy was completed years ago. What we've been seeing for the last 25 years or so is an attempt by the now failing Oligarchy to maintain the myth of a functioning Republic. But predictably, the Oligarchy has begun to believe its own myths. So you have this state of disconnect from reality that bewilders your average and at the moment powerless citizen or journalist. But the Oligarchy wants what it wants so it can't resist its own worst tendencies so the disconnect from reality grows steeper and the acts become more and more overt and crazy (crazy to one who isn't party to the morality destroying wealth of the Oligarchy that is). Finally, desperation sets in as the Oligarchy itself begins to feel the results of it's own failed policies and years of neglecting good governance. Then, the Oligarchy unconsiously switches from trying to maintain the myth of a functioning Republic via some level of self-control and some policy consideration for the masses to trying to passify the masses with circus and beer (another rebate check anyone?). But this act of desperation only buys the Oligarchy more time. But time for what? It has no ability for "change" as it is not a functioning governing body with the tools for introspection and discipline (not a coincidence that this word "change" is being thrown around this election year in such vague terms). Finally, the last chapter is written when a number of the Oligarchy's failed "policies" come home to roost at the same time, destroying the Nations economy or worse. This destiny for all democractically organized governments is spelled out by Plato in "The Republic" and it's the reason why we all know that name thousands of years later even if we don't all know or understand his work. It's the reason the founding fathers drafted the Constitution to be a living, changing document. If you were diligent and careful you could constantly update and re-invent Democracy so that the "decline" was never allowed to begin. But we have not been diligent and careful with it, consumerism and fossil fuels drove us all to distraction. The end.
1964 happened because the right had already removed the left incumbent who would have been handily re-elected. The conservative strategy is to have an offensive line-up and a defensive line-up. Since 1980 more and more players from the offensive line-up have been moving into the defensive line-up. Liberals are merely a second defensive line-up. The left has no offensive line-up in the US, and never has had one. The best offensive players for the left are lone wolves, much of whose achievements "are oft' interred with their bones." The left needs a socialist theory or it will never be a challenger, only a secondary line of defense for the powers behind the throne.
Luckylefty ~ Wow! you certainly nailed it. So many of us still hold on to the promise of change and hope for a brighter future with these Demo front runners.
But I agree - how can they possibly move forward against the powers of corporate fascism hell-bent on world domination. They will be brought to their knees or simply become one in the same. Real change is only a dream.
But when the collapse comes and the US falls into a deep depression, god knows we will certainly experience change.
Hang on tight...
To my fellow CD readers:
I live in Kirkwood, MO, a vibrant, close-knit community which is a suburb of St. Louis. Some of you may have heard of the tragedy here Thursday night where six of our citizens were killed. It has made the national news.
I'm posting this message as a concerned citizen who has now seen first-hand how anger, frustration, and cynicism about our government at all levels pushed a once-respected fellow citizen over the edge to a conclusion that had been thought impossible and unthinkable.
Our community is in shock and mourning over the deaths of two policemen, two city council members, our Public works director, and finally the shooter himself. Our mayor and a local news reporter are hospitalized, the mayor in critical condition. This happened at a city council meeting about zoning laws, not a hotbed of controversy for many of us.
As I lay awake last night trying to make sense of it, I couldn't help feeling that this pervasive anger over "politics as usual," and the loss of our civil rights has trickled down to our small towns & communities, and to me personally. I thought of the town of Brattleboro, VT -- how and why it got to a point where they felt they needed to make a statement for the members of their community in a move to ease some deep frustrations. I wondered if more local governments did the same if it could prevent events such as this one here from happening.
I can't help thinking that our usual and normal frustrations over policies we live with daily on a local basis has, for some, swelled in the last several years to a level that we find incomprehensible because of what is happening nationally, and globally as well. It is taking some people over the edge of reason.
It breaks my heart what is happening to people in this country (and, of course, the world). It is public forums and blogs such as this one that allow us to vent some of these frustrations and prevent mayhem. I am thankful for that.
I ask each of you to urge your local towns and cities (in a calm and mature way, please) to take notice of what happened here in Missouri last night. Ask them to address its citizens frustrations over their loss of power, at any level. It could very possibly save lives.
LBJ was not exactly a grass roots guy, but what if he had
praised Herbert Hoover in 1964?
Such is our predicacment with Obama and Reagan, and yes I
read the quote. The worst part about it was viewing "change"
in the abstract as opposed to right or left movement: no
you cannot compare them! Reagan was aided by corporate
thinktanks that had already changed the direction of the
river.
This think-tank spawned neo-liberalism has become the
snide orthodoxy of CNN political commentators in the
democrats too. This paddeling upstream will be
especially tough, because anyone serious about change
will not only have to take on Republicans but the
O Neils and Reids of the river who are always too
willing to provide forty dem votes to tip the scales in
favor of the Republicans.
Above all it will require the President to use the Bully
pulpit in an economically left direction, at least in so
far as denouncing hegemony.
Is this what you have been hearing from Obama lately?
We will know Obama is serious when he is willing to make
a political enemy. Until then, I will remain as
suspicious as the Corporate Media is specious in their
coverage of him.
Flanders gets it totally wrong from the very beginning with her 'The swirl of the primary season is intoxicating' bit. Laura, the deadness of this play acting is stultifying, and most of the population gets it even if you don't.
We need real democracy in this country, and we need it fast.
Mrs. Clinton is sadly a very retrograde candidate who will not produce any meaningful change even if by a miracle she barely manages to win with 50.23 percent of the vote putting us back into the bitter soap opera times when her husband starting selling out to corporate whores shipping jobs overseas. These same people are now giving her tons of money so you can imagine for whom she will govern.
Yeah, baybe, 15 years, maybe baybe, here's the takeaway after all the pretty words and sizzle, and speeches and colgate smiles:
1. Mr/Ms. Candidate will you repeal: Patriot, MCA, Quick Death & Anti-Terrorism, PAA et al; NAFTA; CAFTA; Taft-Hartley; Will you take the US out of the IMF/WTO/World Bank; and will you restore Posse Comitatus and Glass-Steagal? You know the answer already for each one. Bupkiss.
2. Mr/Ms. Candidate what specific acts or legislation will you use to bring manufacturing, technology, and science jobs back on shore? You know the answer already. Bupkiss.
3. Mr/Ms. Candidate the Roosevelt Legacy had a proven track record for producing the greatest distribution of wealth in the history of the world and the largest middle class in the Industrial World. The 27 years of the Raygun Legacy has produced exactly the opposite. What will you do to restore Roosevelt Legacy taxation, corporate regulation, and social safety net? You know the answer already. Bupkiss.
4. Mr/Ms. Candidate what will you do to provide Single Payer/Medicare For All Americans with no involvement by greed driven murderous corporations? You know the answer already. Bupkiss.
That's four. Haven't even put Iraq on the list yet or impeachment for anybody so you've got lots of room to add your own.
Every one of these is a hot button and most people say, "Well, he/she can't tell you what he really wants to do, he/she'll alienate people. She/He has to TRICK THEM so she/he can get enough votes to be elected. BUT once he/she gets in, she/he'll be our guy and they'll fight for us, and make everything all right. They uses all the right code words."
That is faith based politics, my fellow citizens. Blind faith based on nothing but words. Which sets you up for the whazzoo, "Whatchyu gonna believe bitch, me or your lyin' eyes?" Followed by a few zaps with handy dandy Eric Prince taser gun with the Blackwater Logo. Goes with the Blackwater Action Figures.
That is what elects Adolf Hitler. "Of course he has to tell lies, he's running for office." Am I ringing any bells here?
Don't drink the Kool-Aid. If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Did I hear somebody say we voted a Dim majority so they could END Iraq and Impeach the War Criminals?
Go ahead. Put all the Dims you want from the White House to every back room thug they hire. They all got Blackwater Taser logos now.
What's going to happen to President Barak when Wall Street gets out the ugly stick and takes him into the Back Room? He gonna smile at them and tell them how we can all be friends here? How's your mommy feeling these days Barak? Is she healthy? Old people fall down and break their necks all the time. Sometimes they even fall down in front of cars. Tragic.
How long is he going to last? 15 minutes? 20 minutes? Like Kucinich, he was bred to fold, no steel there. He wants to be loved. And Hillary's been bent over for a real long time. "Vetted" is the phrase they use. Kiss Kiss Ruppert. No touchey the titties.
We are swimming in a sesspool where murder is the least of the sins. Fortunately, the time for this monster to honor itself will soon be at an end.
RIP
Remember, this ends the day the nomination is decided. On that day, whomever wins the nomination will tack so hard to the right that people will get whiplash if they are trying to follow it. And if the Dems take the White House, all of their policies and decisions will be designed to benefit the big donors who back the party.
The base and the grassroots will be forgotten for the next eight years. Not four, because an incumbent Dem president won't even face a serious primary challenge four years from now. We'll go back to being 'idiot liberals'. If we get too close to those in power, we'll hear Pelosi whining about how she'll wish she could get us arrested for loitering.
Enjoy the attention while it lasts. But don't have any illusions that the nature of the Dem party is changing in the least. Not unless you are doing the real work of changing the party. Are you running primary challenges to knock the pro-war, pro-corporate Dems out of their seats in Congress? Are you taking over the state party apparatus in your states? Are you physicially taking control of the party such that you can change the rules to bring democracy back to the party and drive out the influence of big money?
If you aren't doing that, then nothing is changing. And all this illusion of the Dems giving a damn about their base will vanish in a flash the instant the nomination is decided.
My favorite part:
"base-level Party activists, with help from liberal bloggers and others, have already pulled off an organizing feat that's changed the face of the presidential race. Helped by online databases and social-networking software, volunteers can have new impact. Unpaid volunteers have been building attendance at local meetings through their own voter-initiated websites in red and blue states alike. The most significant result so far has been the record turnout."
We are making end runs around the monopoly media by using the internet to inform and motivate each other. We are reclaiming our democracy and anyone who says it can't be done should just sit in their own pessimism and watch us go to work.
If Mr. and Mrs. Clinton really wanted to serve the country, Mrs. Clinton would go to a speech somewhere and astonish the crowd by announcing that she's dropping out to clear the way for Obama to usher in the real change. I'm not looking for that to happen unless she loses a few future primaries badly and her campaign heads toward going broke. But what better place than Common Dreams to articulate a "dream"?
We've been wandering in the wilderness for 40 years. Our time has come to finally make our rightful claim on the White House. We've been enslaved like the Jews of old by our masters, the corporations and the Republicans, and it's time for us to be free and claim our rightful spot in the promised land, the White House and the halls of Congress and a truly free and democratic country where all people's voices will be heard and honoured.
Part the Red Sea, folks, 'cause here we come! Our time is now!
Why should we get excited about any of these candidates in the duopoly party system? Any change will consist of rearranging the deck chairs while the "Titanic" continues sinking.
We can hasten the timetable.
By being more visible
By discussing matters in gatherings that people keep under wraps, lets their openness or bigotry be recognized.
And by electing this really likeable fellow who might pick John Edwards as VP, Barack Obama
It ain't about '64 and the Key Question is: Wherefore intelligent discourse (and yes there will be media frenzy, "manufactured consent" and manipulated mass movements on both the right and left)
Obama is leading NOTHING.
What appears to be a movement is, as the excellent Glen Ford says, nothing more than a corporate generated parade.
These people are in for the surprise of their lives if they believe actual change will come from a corporate Democrat who supports the imperialist foreign policy of prior administrations. Obama is the biggest con man of them all.
I am an independent conservative who at one time voted an almost straight Republican ticket until GW and the NeoCons hijacked the party and took it to the far right. I jumped ship before the last national election and voted for Kerry. Now I have come to the conclusion that Obama is the man of the hour for all of us, unfortunately the Democratic Party has a corrupted system whereby the so-called "Super Delegates" can override the results of those delegates who vote in the primary and select whomever they want thus circumventing the will of the people. I'm just beginning to wonder how the young people and the black voters who have felt so disenfranchised in the past will react in the event that the super delegates decide that Hillary would be a better prospect the Obama in the face of the prospect that may have the greatest numbers and support from this grass roots movement. I wonder if the powers have considered in the face of a potential civil disturbance that most of the National Guard and it's assets are currently in Iraq.