Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The 'Rightwing Backlash' That Never Was
The consensus is that angry voters are moving rightward. But it's nothing Democrats couldn't fix with a dose of economic populism
Is America in the grip of a rightwing backlash that will hit the November elections like a hurricane?
This narrative is gathering steam. It is fed not only by the minority partisan rightwing media, but also its majority "liberal" counterpart, which loves a horse race and is fascinated with the Tea Party, even if it isn't so eager for the Republicans to take congress.
Regardless of the outcome, 90%-plus of the pundits and press will cheese up the same tired old cliché in their post-election analysis: the Democrats were punished (they will inevitably lose at least some seats in congress) because they tried to go too far, too fast and too left for the inherently conservative American masses. And this junk will be consumed for years, adding another layer of fat to the lazy couch potato that is American journalism's "conventional wisdom".
How about another narrative that makes more sense?
Let's start with the economic issues, since the economy was the number one issue for likely voters in the latest New York Times/CBS poll. Our worst and longest recession since the Great Depression was caused by a real estate bubble that accumulated and burst before Obama was elected. The Democrats passed a stimulus package that was much too small to compensate for the resulting loss of private spending.
As my colleague Dean Baker has pointed out, the collapse of this bubble would be expected to knock about $1.2tn annually off of private demand. This is about eight times the size of government stimulus spending when we subtract the budget cuts and tax increases of state and local governments (special thanks to the Republicans for cutting $100bn from the stimulus bill that would have gone straight to municipal governments to prevent some of this).
Now how does this get presented in the media?
First, we have a debate about whether the stimulus helped or hurt the economy, or whether it created or saved any jobs at all. This is somewhat ridiculous, from the standpoint of national income accounting. It is reminiscent of the "debates" that carried on in the media for many years (they continue in some quarters), long after the question was settled in the scientific community, as to whether global warming was taking place. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates (PDF) that between 1.4 and 3.3 million more people were employed by mid 2010, as a result of the stimulus. There is a wide range of uncertainty about the size of the effect, but there's hardly any doubt that the stimulus helped save jobs and output.
Then the horror movie scenes began about the dreaded budget deficit, which, over the next decade, is almost entirely attributable to two non-stimulus-related items: Iraq and Afghanistan war spending and the Bush tax cuts. In spite of this well-financed campaign against the scourge of red ink, only 3% of voters see the deficit as the most important issue facing the country, as compared to 32% who chose the economy and 28% for jobs. Somehow, though, the deficit got to be so alarming that it became politically impossible for congress to even talk about another stimulus for the economy. So, very predictably, the recovery lost steam and the Democrats felt just "powerless" to do anything to boost the economy and employment before the election. This guaranteed big losses for their party in the election.
It didn't help that the Obama administration failed to create a distinction for voters between the $700bn bailout for the banks, which was widely hated for obvious reasons, and their stimulus package. Most Americans still don't see a difference. This was a huge public relations failure.
But all this adds up to something different from a "rightwing backlash". Indeed, the CBS/New York Times poll shows a 20% approval rating for congressional Republicans (the same as for the Tea Party) as opposed to 30 percent for Democrats. But 55% of voters – a record for the past 20 years – say it is time to give a new person a chance to represent their district.
The conclusion is obvious: voters are angry – not the anger of the rich who believe, as John D Rockefeller famously said, that "God gave me my money." It is a populist rage that will drive some independent or swing voters to vote against incumbents and the incumbent party. Even if it means voting for people whom they don't particularly like, trust or agree with on the issues.
Republicans were able to keep this country moving to the right for nearly four decades – including through the Clinton years. For much of this time, they used a fake populist appeal based on cultural issues, portraying a "liberal elite" that was contemptuous of the values of working-class white voters – who have generally been the biggest group of swing voters. The strategy succeeded because Democrats refused to make the obvious economic populist appeal to the real interests of these voters – who were getting hammered by the loss of manufacturing jobs, weakening of labour and redistribution of income that was engineered by the leadership of both parties. In 2004, non-college-educated whites with household income of $30,000-50,000 voted for Republicans for congress by a 60-38% margin; in 2006, a switch to a 50-50 split (22 percentage points) contributed significantly to the Democrats' victory in congress.
The Republicans' long-term strategy collapsed in 2008. The Democrats were lucky, in that the peak of the financial crisis hit just before the elections that year. In October 2008, the number of Americans believing that the country was on the wrong track hit an all-time record of 89%. Most importantly, this situation focused the attention of swing voters on the economy, something that negates the potential appeal of "distraction" issues such as abortion, gay marriage, guns or even the thinly-veiled racism that had been part of the Republicans' appeal since President Nixon's post-civil-rights-movement "southern strategy".
Obama himself had eschewed economic populism in his campaign (making an exception in midwestern primaries such as Wisconsin where he needed more working-class support in order to win), in keeping with his carefully cultivated media image of post-partisan conciliator. But the economy did the job for him, and for the Democratic party.
What does this mean for the elections of 2010? I would predict that Democrats – even in some not-so-Democratic districts – who appeal to the massive populist discontent among the voters will do better than those who follow the conventional wisdom and run to the right of Obama on such issues as healthcare reform or taxes. This applies especially to the swing voters, but could also be significant in rallying the party's base, which is somewhat disillusioned and needs to be energised. Since this is a non-presidential year election, voter turnout could easily swing the election.
It is not so hard to make this appeal: millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs, while the Wall Street gang who sank the economy are once again raking in billions – and only because they have been rescued and subsidised with hundred of billions of our taxpayer dollars. If enough Democrats campaign on these kinds of themes and offer a populist alternative, they could keep both houses of congress.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
115 Comments so far
Show AllAlthough the Republicans are further to the right by a bit, the Democrats bear close to equal responsibility for our right-wing plight. A pox on both of their houses. Bill Clinton was no significant improvement over Reagan or Bush Sr., and Obama no significant improvement over Bush Jr. I cannot get excited by the prospect of the Democrats doing well in the upcoming elections.
Really? You'd be okay with a shutdown of the government while the Republicans try to impeach Obama? (Not that Obama isn't worthy of impeachment, say, for war crimes; but Bush and Cheney first, and not a sitting president, I say.) with endless investigations, not to root out corruption, but to get rid of Democrats and others, and to shut down the government while doing so? with the expenditure of time and money involved in these witch hunts?
You'd be okay with no federal checks going out? no Social Security checks, no Medicare and Medicaid payments? no paychecks for federal government workers? no money to the states? no food stamps? (Do you remember the Republican shut-down of the federal government?)
You'd be okay with Social Security being privatized (one of the Republicans' major goals)? the Department of Education dismantled? our (admittedly inadequate) social safety net abolished?
You'd be okay with climate-change deniers in charge? (Good-bye to any chance for government funding for research on green technology.)
You'd be okay with extending, and possibly increasing, tax-cuts to the wealthy? to to multinational corporations that rake in billions in profit, but pay little or no taxes - or worse, get refunds? (There's a growing push among Democrats to change these laws. Not a single Republican agrees.)
You'd be okay with increased deregulation of all industries, including banking? the repeal of the meager financial reforms we've gotten?
You'd be okay with increased assaults on a woman's right to choose? with blocking the right-to-die movement?
You'd be okay with not just the blocking of the repeal of DADT but a roll-back of gay rights?
I can't get excited about the Dems, either, but the Republicans and the Koch brothers-funded Tea Party and other crazies scare the hell out of me. Why don't they scare you? The Republicans see enough difference between the two parties that they have already planned mounting more dirty tricks at the polls. They are already mounting assaults on the most progressive - (or least conservative) - members of Congress.
Sorry, but if there were no viable third party candidate, I'd vote for the Dem - or more precisely I'd vote against the Republican.
Slower movement in the wrong direction, with a few small gains along the way, sure as hell beats an all-out, head-long hurtle straight over the precipice. With time there is always hope. Not Obama horse-hockey hope, but real hope: hope to reform the Democratic Party, hope that a more moderate - (as opposed to right-wing) - Democratic Party would eventually form a working coalition with (a still-hoped-for) strong third party and Independents.
Others can call it 'lesser-of-two-evils voting,' but I call it defending-against-utter-insanity voting. This is no longer a choice between evil and greater evil; it's a fight for the survival of the republic. Think of it as triage: first, keep the patient alive, then attempt to heal and rehabilitate.
Well said.
Thanks.
Anything you'd add, or perhaps alter? (Serious inquiry.)
Not really, but I guess I could add that I think Republican privatization plans are never ending. Privatize everything and have government reduced to the role of simply funneling middle class money to corporate interests. Oh, and more right-wingers on the Supreme Court for a few decades is less than ideal.
Hello again, and thanks for the response.
Agreed! Anyone who likes what happened to your 401K, will love having his/ her Social Security go the same way.
There are a few small movements afoot to impeach Roberts and Alito for lying to Congress when they swore they would not indulge in activism. You can bet there are House members who support them - even if they daren't say so.
The Republicans have come out with a new contract on America.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I am angry at the Democratic Party. If there were a viable progressive third party candidate here, that person would get my vote. There isn't.
I think the health care bill was a disappointment in any number of ways. I'm a single-payer supporter. Obama's dumping of all chances for a public option was pure sell-out. But I won't vote for the Republican alternative 'plan,' as Alan Grayson described it: Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly. (I've known what it's like to go without coverage when it's needed. That's where I am right now. I wonder how many of those 'principled' voters complaining here have known that.)
I know how much evil Clinton did to us with NAFTA and GATT. But he's been out of office for years. How many of the Dems who supported it are still in Congress? How many who are left haven't figured out that both need to be repealed? (Well, Obama, I think, but he isn't on the ballot.)
The Dems haven't done much, but they've done some things. And, yes, too many of the are using the Republicans for cover in getting done things they really want - but we progressives don't. (I've even said so.) But that's not all of them. There are a few progressives there, and more running. There might have been more running in this election. Why did Winograd, just as one example, lose in the primary? Big money concerns hated her. And many Democratic and Independent voters were too busy 'punishing the Democrats' to dig into their pockets and to back her at the polls. Then these same people turn around and complain that there aren't any/ enough progressives in Congress!
Why punish those who want to turn things around - and ourselves in the process? Yeah, they go two steps back for every step forward. But that doesn't negate the one forward step.
I'm getting tired of the talk of the empire going down. I want that, too. But I want it to go out whimpering, not rampaging. I'm tired of the idiots who glibly talk about the devastation, but oh, well, it has to be that way. (It doesn't have to be. The UK showed us that at the end of WWII.) Usually the big talkers are those who've never known real hardship. I hope they are 'on the front lines,' should it go the worst way.
I heard that woman complaining to Obama that she and her husband couldn't buy a new car, in part because of the cost of sending their kids to private school. I'm not happy they came down in the world, but I'd hardly call not being able to afford a new car as the height of economic suffering. Oh, and by the way, she was an Obama supporter from the start. Seems she got what she voted for, though she was too ignorant to know it at the time, signing on because of meaningless slogans. She needs to stick her tongue in her other major orifice.
Another big French strike: they're protesting a (proposed?) raise in the retirement age, from 60 to 62. And there are idiots here who won't vote against the jerks who want to raise Americans' retirement age to 70. Unbelievable.
Just heard this: Agence France has published that there's now evidence - not hearsay, but legally-acceptable documentation - that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are war criminals: the Iraq war was planned long before 9-11. I have WCPT radio on, something I don't usually have time for. (It's available online.) Thom Hartman's show is on as I type this. I want to hear his next guest, Swedish Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair of WaterAid-Sweden www.wateraid.org. Then I am off to Agence France to print out the article.
At that point, I may very well declare myself 'politicked out,' though I'll return here to see if you've had anything to add.
You said quite a lot. I don't have much to add except I've never had any doubt that the Iraq War was planned long before 9-11.
Aye, but proving it was the sticking point.
Now we need to pressure the administration: go wake Eric Holder up!
Very good points. Great post actually. But I am in the camp that elections are an illusion for us to think we really have a choice of who is in power. They take turns. Now the voting machines are in the hands of repub corps. Bush stole 2 elections with the shenanigans in Florida anf then Iowa.
Don't you see how it is a game? When the thugs sre in power they do whatever they want and the dems say they they can't stop it. Then the thugs are in the minority they stop everything and the dems can't get anything passed. Look at it that way. Just a game that both parties take care of the corporations, the MIC and the rich people.
The dems have moved so far right anyway.
I would like to know why millionares are the only ones in Congress. The power to be sure. But why do they need for us to pay for their meals, cars, healthcare ect while millions of us starve. Oh and all those lavish parties they have?
Just a game IMO.
All granted, but:
It's the only game we've got.
If you are not a player, you can't complain that the rules never change.
Shut Down the fascist imperial war machine, go for it.
I think we should all attempt to predict what charge of impeachment OilyBomber is tried on.
Those on this government's teat are validating a criminal government and will have to look elsewhere for help.
Sorry, but the military is funded with an annual appropriation. The wars would continue on unabated.
Good point.
But we have,in my estimation, gone pass the point of no return, the republic has expired and the best one may do is let the machines provide a faxsimile of life.
Why, because with electronic voting and corporate personhood we are in "Catch 22" situations that have no remedies within the system.
It's time to move on to something better.
How and what are the Questions but it does not lie in this "fixed" system.
Would that mean that you would favor a quick death?
I've heard it argued, and I do understand the thinking - even agree wholeheartedly in my darker moments. However, the less attention I pay to politics, the less hopeless I feel, and I've recently returned from a vacation from politics. (Perhaps ignorance truly is bliss.)
Or did you have something else in mind?
I tend to think we should be working to hasten the collapse of the U.S. That would be the best thing for the rest of the world, and in the long run best for Americans, too.
I'm sure things would be very rough, and a lot of us might not make it to the other side of the crisis, but there is no way to fix the current system. It is killing the world. Since the people can't overthrow our barbarian rulers or even affect them significantly, their system needs to go.
From the scrap I caught on WCPT (carried online), inflation is on its way. They're 'printing up' scads of new dollars.
What I heard was a defense of printing up more, citing years in a deflationary mode and claiming that inflation would act as a balancing force; but then, I didn't get it from the MSM or any (other) right-wing source, so they had no interest fear-mongering.
I am no economist - not by a long shot - but I certainly do understand the entire system is rigged. Disheartening...
I'm assuming you're playing devil's advocate here but I talked to Quannah about this and I shall share this with you. A lot of what you talk about has already been going on.
"You'd be okay with no federal checks going out? no Social Security checks, no Medicare and Medicaid payments? no paychecks for federal government workers? no money to the states? no food stamps?"
These social programs are already getting defunded and payments are already getting harder to come by.
"(Do you remember the Republican shut-down of the federal government?)"
I do and the show only lasted so long. After that, it was business as usual with the two parties.
"You'd be okay with Social Security being privatized (one of the Republicans' major goals)? the Department of Education dismantled? our (admittedly inadequate) social safety net abolished? "
SS has already been getting a privatized transition when you look at 401k and Obama and his party were already prepared to go along with more privatization to pay out for the 700 billion dollar bailout. The social safety net is already thinned out to the point of being as good as gone.
"You'd be okay with climate-change deniers in charge? (Good-bye to any chance for government funding for research on green technology.) "
They're already in charge and if you think cap and trade will solve climate change, look again. Government funding for green technologies is already way too low and nothing on that has improved in the last 4 years. What happened to all those green job projects they promised?
"You'd be okay with extending, and possibly increasing, tax-cuts to the wealthy? to to multinational corporations that rake in billions in profit, but pay little or no taxes - or worse, get refunds? (There's a growing push among Democrats to change these laws. Not a single Republican agrees.)"
The Democrats are already poised to continue the Bush tax cuts so no difference between the Republicans and Democrats there.
"You'd be okay with increased deregulation of all industries, including banking? the repeal of the meager financial reforms we've gotten? "
The Democrats are doing it even more than the Republicans just these last two years alone.
"You'd be okay with increased assaults on a woman's right to choose? with blocking the right-to-die movement?"
Women's rights to choose has already been chipped away these last two decades. Where were the Democrats on Terri Schiavo? Here's a refresher,
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i6democracy.htm
"You'd be okay with not just the blocking of the repeal of DADT but a roll-back of gay rights?"
The Republicans would never really want to roll back gay rights any more than the Democrats wanting to govern as progressive populists.
"I can't get excited about the Dems, either, but the Republicans and the Koch brothers-funded Tea Party and other crazies scare the hell out of me. Why don't they scare you? "
Koch and Tea have already been doing quite fine even with the Democrats in power. It won't make a difference no matter who is in charge.
"Slower movement in the wrong direction, with a few small gains along the way, sure as hell beats an all-out, head-long hurtle straight over the precipice."
Now that has to be playing devil's advocate here. The sooner this empire crumbles, the sooner this nation will turn a new leaf.
"Others can call it 'lesser-of-two-evils voting,' but I call it defending-against-utter-insanity voting. This is no longer a choice between evil and greater evil; it's a fight for the survival of the republic. Think of it as triage: first, keep the patient alive, then attempt to heal and rehabilitate."
Hardly. This sounds more like trying to pull a "Terri Schiavo" for the Democratic Party. Not much has changed of the Republican Party but the Democratic Party has moved too far to the right. This nation is already a lost soul so survival isn't the question. The question is who will get us out of the darkness. By now, not voting or voting third party is the best defense against utter insanity voting.
Oh, here you are! (I noticed you hadn't returned to the other thread.) A new role as go-between, Max?
Strangely, although you post this as an argument, we are more in agreement than you appear to be suggesting.
As I wrote, I believe we are still heading in the wrong direction, but a bit more slowly. Don't you think there's anything to be said for having more time?
While your points - or Quannah's, or both of yours? - are certainly valid, I find myself in better humor, as I stated, from my vacation from politics.
What I see now is the imminent implosion of the Republican Party. It may already have begun. It is my hope that the shock of that combined with an influx of younger, more progressive blood into the Congress, (including the Democratic Party), may lead to an about-face.
What else is there to hope for?
"The sooner this empire crumbles, the sooner this nation will turn a new leaf." Have you thought that through? Yes, this empire is going down, but the questions remain: will it go out with a bang, and if so, how big will the cataclysm be - and how much of the world will we take down with us?
Granted, most of my concern is abstract. (I think that the word I am looking for... language is such a poor medium for communicating, but unfortunately, it's all we have.)
That little holiday from politics was - and continues to be - more than just that. I am slowly removing myself from most of the world, sawing through the chains that have bound me, and looking around and about, nowhere and elsewhere. I have felt the increasing need to bury myself in music, art, and (non-political) humor. It wasn't planned; it just evolved naturally. I am increasingly drawn toward the idea of lightening: lightening the burden of material possessions (which means mainly my library); lightening the load of my physical self (I find I have to remind myself to eat - and even then I don't always listen to myself); lightening my footprint in the lives of others and in the world as a whole (not that I have ever mattered to most of the people around me or been through much of the world).
At the same time, I find myself completely absorbed in what are, objectively speaking, utterly trivial concerns.
Yet my ties to the Earth itself are not only intact, but strengthening. Landforms and oceans, and all the non-human creatures within them have increasing meaning for me. Perhaps it is this that compels me to grasp at straws and hope for the empire to wither rather than explode. Or perhaps 'whistling past the graveyard' would be a more appropriate expression.
I am also losing much of my edge, along with my anger and outrage. Devil's advocate? Well, that was my main role in high school. Perhaps I am regressing....
Confused? So am I! However, I am not worried about it. (Strange that, as I have always tended to worry about *everything*.)
"Oh, here you are! (I noticed you hadn't returned to the other thread.) A new role as go-between, Max?"
I don't know where you got that thought from. I tend to both post on the new articles and respond to older threads so I might be a little late when I respond to the older thread but have another look.
"As I wrote, I believe we are still heading in the wrong direction, but a bit more slowly. Don't you think there's anything to be said for having more time?"
If more time actually meant changing direction instead of slowly heading towards destruction, then it would be meaningful. Otherwise, why waste anymore time when one could just get it over with and then use that time to start over? That's all I was getting at.
"It is my hope that the shock of that combined with an influx of younger, more progressive blood into the Congress, (including the Democratic Party), may lead to an about-face. "
I wouldn't be so sure about younger and progressive blood. When one looks back at who got elected in 2004, 2006, and 2008, the younger politicians tend to be more pro status quo than even some of the older politicians. Consider this. Aside from Kucinich, Feingold, and Sanders, most politicians are nowhere near progressive. Most of them are nothing like Ted Kennedy or Paul Wellstone and they would call Eisenhower and FDR communists. In my district, I have nobody serious to choose from and Glenn Nye is already in trouble even as a Blue Dog Democrat. He could have been progressive as a young man but he chose to think illogically and now he's likely to lose to a Virginia Beach car dealer. Here's a link that describes my pathetic Congressman Glenn Nye.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/obama.mojo/index.html?npt=NP1
Rigell even puts Nye to shame on Social Security, TARP, stimulus bill, and all even though I don't expect him to decline military pork especially since wars for oil would only serve to boost his sleazy dealerships.
"Have you thought that through? Yes, this empire is going down, but the questions remain: will it go out with a bang, and if so, how big will the cataclysm be - and how much of the world will we take down with us? "
My understanding, and probably in agreement with many others here, is that the more time it has to crumble, the more nations it can drag into the crumbling. I would assume that the impact would be big right now but only bigger should it be allowed more time.
"I am also losing much of my edge, along with my anger and outrage. Devil's advocate? Well, that was my main role in high school. Perhaps I am regressing...."
Very well then. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I don't think that you are regressing but we can all help each other out.
Sorry if you took my friendly needling as sarcasm or criticism. I had thought you knew me well enough to take as the good-natured joke it was intended to be. You hadn't returned to the old thread. The role as go-between joke referred to your saying you took the discussion to Quannah - who obviously did not come here herself. She has no obligation to do so, of course, and there's certainly nothing wrong with passing information and ideas along. (That's what these boards are for.) Nor, for that matter do I think you have any obligation to return to any thread. No criticism. No complaint. No expectations. Simple observation. Perhaps my use of parentheses was not sufficient to separate my points, and I ought to have used the 'return' key instead. My apologies for the confusion, and I hope this clarifies things.
Yes, there are regressives in the younger generation(s). But there are those who are more progressive, too; and we can hope for an influx of the more progressive strain.
More time: no guarantee of anything, but it allows for hope, and it allows one to work for real change.
You quoted me and yet responded to something I didn't suggest - at least not in that quote. Nor did I mean to suggest it at all, (I think). Empires die in a variety of ways. It is my understanding that quick deaths are usually cataclysmic. Of course, it doesn't have to be a cataclysm caused by the empire in question. The UK showed us that. The cataclysm (WWII) came from another place, (interestingly, an aspiring empire), and the costs of the war were so huge that there was no way for them to continue to support their empire. (Yes, it was far more complex than that, but that is the nugget I retained - correctly or incorrectly - from the little reading I have done on the subject.)
Slow deaths are more problematic. If we are talking about going out scrabbling and fighting all the way, then, yes, the US can devastate much of the rest of the world. But it doesn't have to be that way, either. Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with the financial meltdown, may be our cataclysmic spur: there is growing dismay with the idea of empire. It could mean the dismantling of the empire, though it would go more slowly then in the UK. It's difficult to predict, but slow - at this precise point - offers the chance for a process that will do relatively little *additional* harm. (Yes, relatively.)
As I told you, I am withdrawing from the world; I am spending increasing amounts of time living just inside my own head, so to speak. (I have spoken to no one, barring my budgie, for nearly four full days - and counting.) There have always been times I've found it difficult to put my thoughts into words, and that is increasingly the case. (I've yet to find signs of where this will lead - or how far it will go.)
I hope that clarifies things, Max.
"The role as go-between joke referred to your saying you took the discussion to Quannah - who obviously did not come here herself."
I apologize for not being clear earlier. I know that she is practical and will vote Democrat over Republican while you would vote third party. I had a friendly discussion with her and I understand that there is a lot of anxiety over what is at stake.
"I had thought you knew me well enough to take as the good-natured joke it was intended to be."
It has been a while but now I remember. My apologies.
"As I told you, I am withdrawing from the world; I am spending increasing amounts of time living just inside my own head, so to speak. (I have spoken to no one, barring my budgie, for nearly four full days - and counting.)"
Alone or company, good luck to you and hope it all works out well. I suppose each and everyone of us could try something like that once in a while.
"I hope that clarifies things, Max."
Yes it did and thanks. Take care.
Well, I would vote (progressive!) third party, if there a viable candidate. There are none here, so Democratic it must be. In my area, the Democrats so greatly outnumber the Republicans that I often feel it is unnecessary for me to bother to show up at the polls, except to cast a third-party vote.
I did get to your response on the other thread - which - honestly! - hadn't been posted when I referred to your absence, (Either that or I need glasses more than I thought!)
"I did get to your response on the other thread - which - honestly! - hadn't been posted when I referred to your absence, (Either that or I need glasses more than I thought!)"
No photon, you don't need glasses. You have it correct. Trust me.
"In my area, the Democrats so greatly outnumber the Republicans that I often feel it is unnecessary for me to bother to show up at the polls, except to cast a third-party vote. "
You're lucky because out here in OK, the Republicans outnumber the Democrats and we don't get to select third parties or do write-ins for president. The OK Democrats pushed for this more than the Republicans.
My sincerest sympathies.
Could I ask you to please be more outspoken here, and to explain to these 'principled' voters who would risk giving the Republicans (more) control in Congress just how the rest of country would look - and I mean what it is like in Republican-land, including OK? (They think it's bad now...)
I can only speak to the urban situation here, as I live in a large city (Chicago). Don't know whether you live in an urban or rural area.
There are Help Wanted signs in my neighborhood. Not many, and just in stores, but they're there. Any where you are (or the cities, if you're rural)?
There's a huge expansion/ upgrading project still underway in public transportation. Do you have adequate public transportation there? Do you have any?
In what areas do you believe you suffer deprivations because of Republican control?
Schools? Libraries? Hospitals/clinics? Wages? Employment? Roads? Clean water/ air?
I live in Tulsa but the whole state is generally the same. I don't expect my neighboring district Congressman Dan Boren to be much help. The voters are just interested in guns, abortion, football game and think that more tax cuts from Republicans will stop Obama from being a "socialist".
"In what areas do you believe you suffer deprivations because of Republican control?
Schools? Libraries? Hospitals/clinics? Wages? Employment? Roads? Clean water/ air?"
I think all of them equally but the Democrats were never much help even when they had some control of the state legislature or the governor's mansion. I would vote Democrat just to keep the Republicans from their worst. I'm thinking that it's not getting worth it anymore.
Sorry to hear things are that rough. I can't tell you that more Dems at the state level would be of any great help to you. As you know, they vary, from state to state, even from district to district.
On the national level, I find the Dems a great disappointment - (not that they are any great shakes here in Chicago/ IL) - but this latest crop of Republicans really scares the hell out of me. (They even scare the hell out of some Republicans.) I won't be voting in hopes of much positive, but I will be hoping to put the brakes on the Koch brothers' (and others') attempts to finish us off.
I'm considering getting a passport, buying up a bunch of English - XX phrase books, and living the remainder of my life 'on the road.' I may not qualify for immigration into any civilized nation, but I can qualify for visas!
Oops, duplicate.
I appreciate your point-by-point rebuttal, Max. I am frankly leaning towards the empire is too far gone to be saved at this point. Both parties can keep going back and forth for years chipping away at the majority of the American citizenry, or it can come to a head quicker. I don't feel good voting for either party and so I won't. I heard this morning on Democracy Now that you can't have independent candidates in Mexico. Such is life in Mexico aided and abetted by our two parties. At least we have some third-party candidates and we could give them some nice support if we could just let go of the fear of the loons.
As I read your response, Max, I summed it up this way -- a slow bleed versus a fast bleed. And the Dems, aided by Obama, seem to be moving a bit faster in this regard. One thing is clear, they are not afraid of their progressive base, or of losing them, it seems. The pretense of the Dem Party as the party of the people is so thin, aided by the few token progressives that exist but rarely put up a meaningful fight.
To tell you the truth, since 2007 I have been losing my faith in the Democratic Party but it wasn't until last year when I became less hesitant about the idea of just letting it collapse. I would have lots to be disappointed with the Democratic Party on but even in 2005 I had held out some hope. I have had a lot of hard thinking over the years about what to make of this party. The Democrats promise to crash at 60 mph while the Republicans crash at 90 mph. The result? Democrats ending up crashing at 75 mph while the Republicans at 85 mph is the pattern I see. The next time the Republicans promised 95 mph and the Democrats 80 mph to not look "too liberal". Then the Democrats push it to 85 mph while the Republicans at 90 mph. The pattern never ceases to stop or reverse.
16 years I could fear that more was at stake but at that time, there was at least some government for the people remaining. Today, all this fear about Republicans wanting to shut down government is meaningless when one examines that there is very little remaining of government for the people anymore. There is a big government all right but it's for Corporate America and the Military Industrial Complex. I have no reason to expect that Democrats, never mind Republicans, would want to shut that government down.
I hate to see this party go but they're either with us or against us and the last decade alone gives us a clear answer.
Practical thinkers on this site are often shunned. Thanks for balancing out purism with some practical common sense. We can always be disappointed with what we got now but as they say, careful what you wish for. It could be worse.
If by "purism" you mean turning away from those who would kill innocent human beings, many of whom are children, all for power and empire, then yeah, purism has its merits. It proves we're actually able to draw a line. Many of you, with your lesser evilism mantra, have no line. You just continue to be pulled to the right. No demand, no challenges, just like your Democrat counter-parts. I think some have used the term: "spineless." Off the to the right you go, willingly! Your strategy makes it impossible to try any other direction.
I'm in utter awe of this Orwellian twisted logic:
In your mind, drawing a line, turning away from the Democrat's agenda and their brutality is not balanced, while sticking with the killers is balanced.
For over 40 years I and other progressive have voted Democrat. Many have worked to get progressives into office. That strategy has gotten us exactly the opposite of what we worked for - Obama only the most recent example. But still, here you are calling for the same old, tired strategy. It's a strategy researched and designed by the duopoly! They know you far better than you know yourself! Either that or you're simply shilling for the empire.
You've accurately, articulately recorded the fears that haunt a huge bloc of very reasonable people.
Their reason, rationality, common sense & pragmatism are being held hostage by the Democrats' Corporate backers, who know they will win.
Would you please expand your comment? I believe we are in agreement; I'd like to hear more.
"I call it defending-against-utter-insanity voting."
What I call it is a choice between hard fascism and soft fascism. We've been living under soft fascism for a while now, with an entrenched oligarchy running the country through rigged elections and institutionalized corruption at all levels of government. At moments, say during an anti-G20 protest, we catch a glimpse of the State's repressive, authoritarian nature, and the police in general do have a tendency toward brutality and cruelty. But, as they say, we ain't seen nothing yet.
If the Tea Party types take power, we should expect to see the true face of fascist totalitarian rule. The Arizona anti-immigrant law is just the beginning. These policies will go national, and God help you if you are a Mexican or a Muslim, not to mention gay or a left-wing intellectual. They are not called wingnuts for no reason -- these people are crazy, hate-filled, jingoistic ignoramuses. Putting power in their hands is a very, very bad idea. It is prudent to vote against them, even if that means the Democrats remain in charge.
Great post BTW.
I think you are spot on, and you are correct in your use of the term 'fascist.'
Want to be scared even more? Watch - if you haven't already - "Das Leben der Anderen," ("The Lives of Others"), set in the former East Germany. That's what these evil fascist thugs would love for us - and I'd bet the ignorant dupes in the Tea Party (and other groups) would name the wrong person as hero. Well, at least I thought of him as heroic, albeit on a small scale. I rented it from Netflix, so it's probably widely available without purchase - perhaps even free online. (If, like me, you don't understand German, you'll have to deal with subtitles, but it's worth the effort.)
You know, it's difficult to say for certain which stance would prove more effective or less painful for most in the long run.
Right now, perhaps only because of where I am in my own inner life, I want to go with hope. I worry about returning to the head-long rush over the precipice. It's guaranteed fatal - and not just to us here in the US.
Frankly, I worry about the mood of some people. And I wonder about it. There's a fair chance I won't be here in five years, nor do I have children who will be. I am in a position to be utterly selfish in my wishes, yet it is others who don't give a damn about trying to save the republic - and to do so in the way that is least destructive to the entire world.
Let it all burn! is the cry I would expect from the insane right-wing fringe. To hear it from supposed progressives is disheartening.
Thanks for the response.
Sure I would. The American people have very little to say about what this government is going to do anyway. Israel's Whores (as I call them) will answer to their whoremaster and no one else. Oh sure, they may appear in a few campaign stops and act all concerned with the plight of the common people in this country, but you know as well as I do their meal ticket is already paid for. They don't know the American electorate, don't care about them, and can't forget about them fast enough. I'm afraid things have gone far enough that it will take a major incident to effect change in this country. Can you see any of the leeches on the American taxpayer's money (Israel, both houses of congress, or our 'justice' system) deciding it's time to relax their grip on the federal teat?
The shutdown of the Federal Government hurt the Republicans in the 1996 elections, and it was rather limited in duration. It is increasingly likely that the Democrats will cut taxes for the wealthy and Social Security. Obama could repeal DADT with an executive order, but has chosen not to.
As for the other issues that you bring up, the filibuster and the Presidential veto do not disappear if the Republicans take control of Congress. Not even the most rabidly partisan Republicans think that they can get a veto-proof majority in this election. If the Democrats really are different from the Republicans, Obama will veto the Republican legislation and Congressional Democrats will uphold his vetoes. That is if the legislation even gets past the filibuster in the Senate.
If Obama and the Congressional Democrats cave in, then I think we can all agree that it's time to abandon them for the Greens.
The shutdown this time around would probably be longer. Plus, the MSM back then was a different animal, as was talk radio. This time around, you could look forward to almost all the media making it the Democrats' fault, and I have my doubts that the Republicans would suffer a similar backlash.
Filibuster? Do you remember the 'nuclear option threat? It seems only the Republicans are entitled to filibuster. Veto? Obama?
I am no defender of the Democratic Party as it stands. I am in favor of keeping the lunatic Republicans out - particularly while we have acquiescent Dems. (Many do indeed use the Republicans as cover for doing what they want to do anyway.)
My belief is that the best short-term goal is to keep the Republicans out of by the most effective means. If there were a viable Green or progressive Independent candidate where I am, that's where my vote would go. There isn't, so I will probably vote for the Dem. (I say 'probably' because, frankly, where I live, a Democratic win is almost guaranteed, whatever election you talk about.)
The long-term goal should be to build up a single, viable third party. Vote for them now, where they have a real chance of winning, and work toward more of them having better chances in the future. Is there a more logical approach?
The problem we face is illustrated right here every day by you CD posters. It seems that many of you, unlike Obama, simply lack the necessary skills for getting along with others, especially authority figures.
You at least need to make an effort. You need to learn how to conpromise (oops, Freudian misspell - sorry).
“This narrative is gathering steam. It is fed not only by the minority partisan rightwing media, but also its majority ‘liberal’ counterpart.”
The most insidious and enduring myth propagated by MSM journalists is that they serve anything other than the rightwing agenda of their employers, and the above excerpt from Weisbrot's article is a perfect example of it.
Also according to Weisbrot, the MSM narrative of a rightwing backlash to punish Obama for being too liberal doesn’t make any sense.
It makes perfect sense once you understand that mainstream US journalism is only the propaganda arm of a neofascist US oligarchy.
" is a populist rage that will drive some independent or swing voters to vote against incumbents and the incumbent party. Even if it means voting for people whom they don't particularly like, trust or agree with on the issues.'
Never underestimate American Stupidity..
"I'm dumb as hell, and ready to take it somemore!"
Ah, yes. A guy I know who lives in government subsidized housing just had a letter to the editor published pleading for reduced government spending and asking to keep taxes low on the rich.
"Democrats ... who appeal to the massive populist discontent among the voters will do better than those who follow the conventional wisdom and run to the right of Obama on such issues as healthcare reform ..."
Seeing as how Obama let the industry lobbyists write the healthcare (wealthcare?) bill, how is it possible to run to the right of Obama?
Caleb,
Thank you.
There is no "right of Obama."
In nearly two years of Obama's presidency, he has managed to "outdrone" Bush in his entire 8 years.
Anyonwe who paints Obama as leftist or liberal needs a head check.
He's not even a "centrist."
Re:"There is no "right of Obama." "
Not even Palin or Gingrich?
I think it's explained as "right of Obama" who is a Dem. Obama is just shy of, if not half way in, the Republican party. In other words, how do you run right of Obama without being a Republican? A Baucus maybe? Or a Ben Nelson? I don't know. Obama seems pretty comfortable with these characters, hence there is no right of Obama.
To believe this, you have to believe there is no difference between Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotamayor. You don't really believe this do you?
Fair enough. There are big difference between Thomas and Sotamayor. Sotomayor wasn't an issue but Elena Kagan was and there were other qualified progressive/liberal nominees Obama could have easily chosen from but refused. The Republicans as usual painted Kagan as if she were a "liberal" but she got voted in big anyway. He rightwing thinking is very well known and the Republicans will use this to whittle down the Democratic argument that "only Republican presidents will put rightwing justices on the bench". Pay closer attention to the economic justice cases. In most of those cases, most of the justices except Stevens would rule in favor the corporatists. Most people don't follow these cases but they should.