Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
For Jobs and Peace, It Matters if the Republicans Retake Congress
Life, as we all know, is unfair. As Bertrand Russell noted, "In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying." We were born in an unfair world, and we will almost certainly die in one. A rational person does not conclude that activity to improve things is useless. This we also know.
But when it comes to collective action for the common good, we sometimes have trouble acting on the basis of the obvious.
In our personal lives, we tend to think and act more rationally. There's nothing we can do to eliminate the danger of being killed in a car accident; nonetheless we wear seat belts, because the odds of being killed are significantly decreased. But when it comes to collective action for the common good, we're more vulnerable to irrational thinking, because the connection between individual action and butt-saving is not so direct.
The media says there is an "enthusiasm gap": Republicans care more if Republicans take over Congress than Democrats do. If that's true, then a significant number of Democrats are allowing themselves to be swayed by irrational thinking. They're driving without seatbelts, because they're not focused on actions and consequences.
If some Democrats want to punish Barack Obama at the ballot box for the gap between the soaring rhetoric of the Presidential campaign and the reality we live today, sitting on their hands while Republicans take down Russ Feingold and Jim McGovern and the Democratic Congress is an irrational way to do it. No matter what happens in November, Barack Obama will almost surely be President for at least two more years. The rational way for Democrats to hold Obama accountable at the ballot box for unfulfilled promise is to agitate for and support a progressive Democratic challenge to Obama in 2012, when Obama will be on the ballot. We can talk more about that after the Congressional election.
Right now, we should consider this: Russ Feingold and Jim McGovern and the majority of Democrats in Congress fought for more action to reduce unemployment. Russ Feingold and Jim McGovern and the majority of Democrats in Congress fought for a public option for health insurance. And Russ Feingold and Jim McGovern and the majority of Democrats in the House, alongside 18 Democrats in the Senate, fought for a timetable to end the war in Afghanistan.
Letting the Republicans win will not make Washington more progressive. It will make Washington more reactionary.
If the Republicans take over Congress, the national media narrative will be, "Obama moved too far to the left. Now he has to move to the center." Of course, the national media are just aching to conclude this. If it rains on the Fourth of July, it's because the Democratic President moved too far to the left. But if Republicans take over Congress, there will be an objective basis for this narrative. This narrative will shape all press coverage and all public debate on all issues for the next two years, if the Republicans win.
If the Republicans win, they will have a huge megaphone to dominate national debate and set the policy agenda for the next two years, much bigger than the huge megaphone they already have now. Most Americans don't know who John Boehner is, but if he becomes Speaker of the House, they will learn. A key frame of reference for the media will be whatever the Republicans are saying, much more than it is already. Prepare for stories like this every day: "According to Speaker Boehner, the moon is made of green cheese. But some experts dispute this."
If Feingold or McGovern is defeated, there won't be a Feingold-McGovern amendment to establish a timetable for military withdrawal from Afghanistan, supported by the majority of House Democrats and 18 Democrats in the Senate. But even if they are not defeated, if Republicans take over Congress, there might be no vote on such an amendment, because the Republican leadership might not allow it. And the same dynamics are likely across the board: everything progressives want will be much less likely, everything progressives fear will be more likely, if the Republicans take over Congress. Action to reduce unemployment will be less likely. Cuts to Social Security such as by raising the retirement age will be more likely. The war in Afghanistan will likely go on longer. Modest reforms that would improve the lives of many to labor law, environmental regulations, immigration policy, and foreign policy are likely to be blocked. Cuts in military spending will be less likely. Equal rights for gay men and lesbians will fall lower on the Washington agenda.
Many people don't realize how much initiatives like the Feingold-McGovern amendment matter. According to press reports of Bob Woodward's new book, in explaining why he was insisting on the July 2011 beginning of drawdown, Obama said: "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party." This shows why initiatives like the Feingold-McGovern amendment, which showed that 60% of House Democrats wanted a timetable for withdrawal, are effective. They help produce policy changes like the 2011 drawdown - as Win Without War's Tom Andrews pointed out when the policy was announced.
To fail to be enthusiastic about the possibility of preventing a Republican takeover, when that would be so damaging to the interests of Democratic voters across a number of issues, would be to capitulate to unreason. If we are diagnosed with cancer, and it turns out that a medical treatment is likely to save us, would we not be enthusiastic about such a treatment?
And the good news is this: it's never been easier to do a small bit to stop the Republicans from taking over. Perhaps we live in a district that is not competitive. It's never been easier for us to get involved somewhere else.
Virtually all literate Americans can afford a monetary contribution to a candidate they like who is in a competitive race. The super-rich donate to political campaigns - are they poor judges of self-interest? As individuals, the super-rich have more money, but people who work for a living are far more numerous; if we all throw what we can in the hat, we can dominate the super-rich. For your individual contribution to have more political impact, donate through an organization you like, such your labor union, Progressive Democrats of America, or the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
And it's never been easier to effectively contribute a small amount of time. MoveOn, for example, is organizing calling parties around the country. Attending such a party is an easy and efficient way to participate with a small amount of time. In two hours, you can go, do your bit, and leave. You're sheltered from the elements, you get food and drink and the company of pleasant people. The phone calls you make are not to random people, but to MoveOn members in competitive districts, who are generally very happy to hear from you. Your ask is simple: can they volunteer an hour or two at the campaign office of a progressive champion like Russ Feingold or Jim McGovern?
And if you can get to Washington on October 2- check here for transportation - join the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, many peace organizations and hundreds of thousands of others on the Mall as we "Demand the changes we voted for" and rally for Jobs, Justice, Education, and Peace as part of "One Nation Working Together."
205 Comments so far
Show AllOur family will be there. "One Nation Working Together." October 2. The best place for us to be, in solidarity with our people and working together for what we want.
from the way the DC dems are behaving, i'd much rather have gop in power. then at least we'll know who we're dealing with.
Indeed. Life under Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush and Ashcroft was so delightful, so uplifting, so damn GOOD for the long-term future of this country that I can barely wait to repeat the experience ...
But, hey: at least we "knew who we were dealing with" in those days, eh? (Even if most Americans, mesmerized by 'American Idol' and 'Survivor' on television, didn't know and didn't care).
Just as we clearly know who we'll be dealing with for the rest of my lifetime on the Supreme Court: civic-minded gents like Thomas and Alito and Roberts appointed by those trouble-making but oh-so-refreshingly candid Republicans.
Ah, them good 'ol days ...
at least, bush taught people what not to do. in two years, obama has turned the clock back to utter confusion and reactionary politics.
"Bush taught people what not to do."
Really? I thought that the 2010 Republican Party platform -- excuse me, the Republican "Pledge to America" -- proposes doing exactly the same things all over again that Bush-Cheney-Rove did. Only with wackier, less-rational candidates than ever. And is likely to result in a Republican-majority Congress come January.
Hitler and Stalin taught people what not to do, too. That doesn't mean I'd want to invite them back for a second round to teach us more of their valuable lessons.
On the money.
You can't argue with 'purists,' though.
The Republicans truly are absolutely insane - and so is their Plague on America/ Contract on America II. Not trying to stop them is **every bit** as insane.
Defensive voting isn't my first choice - it's the only choice.
Every time we voted for the lesser of two evils, both evils became more evil.
Voting for Democrats (with a few exceptions, like Feingold) just gives them tacit permission to keep moving ever rightward.
The past 4 years of Democrats controlling Congress and 2 years in the White House have proven that if you vote for Democrats without dogging them every day they are in office, they will be complicit in Republican crimes, pass unprecedented corporate welfare programs disguised as health care reform and bank reform, and gut social security. Republicans are now able to play Brer Rabbit's "please don't throw me in the briar patch" game, crying foul as the Democrats pass Republican legislation the Republicans could never succeed in passing when they were in control.
If you don't have the time and will to dog Democrats every day, you better not vote for them.
Your first line is perfection. Then everything else in your comment is dead on.
I'd rather worry about keeping my car running than keeping a majority of Democrats in office just because they carry the label "Democrat", so that they can do Republican things to me and say how wonderful they are.
Last sentence is priceless...
Lota sense here! I'm checking out every Green & 3rd Party hopeful to support!
Without a more progressive Democratic Party, any third party Congressional members will be utterly powerless. And their party/ parties will then lose supporters - because 'progressives' are so bloody impatient.
You need to learn how political systems with more than two viable parties actually function.
It isn't simply a matter of keeping Democrats in power, but also increasing the number of progressive Congress members. I believe Marcy Winograd, for example, lost her primary fight in large part because of the attitude too often on display here. The people who complain that the party is too far right are often also the same people who refuse to support progressive candidates just because they are Democrats. Don't see a connection?
Bad news: it isn't going to happen in two or four years. The Republicans have been at it steadily for 30 years - and their successes are in large part due to 'progressives' being so impatient.
By the way, I would always vote for a (progressive) third party candidate in a primary, and a *viable* third party candidate in an election.
Photons,
Sorry, but recognizing that change in the U.S. is probably going to have to happen incrementally, over time, and through lots of hard work -- much as has been the case in every other social democracy I can think of on this planet (e.g., Denmark, Germany, Finland) ... well, that doesn't go over well on this website.
CD-ers are waiting for a massive popular revolutionary uprising, and to hell with it if they're going to settle for less.
Which I kind of admire. However, living in the pragmatic, messy, and imperfect world of compromises and incremental change that IS politics, I'm with you -- I vote for and contribute to a progressive third-party candidate or Democrat whenever I can, settle for less if I have to, and work to strengthen the progressive candidates within the Democratic Party in the meantime.
I'm thinking of 1776, when 100% of politicians were white and male, and most of them were slave-owners. Clearly, blacks and women were never gonna have ANY rights in that kind of a country. Might as well throw in the towel and quit voting, eh?
Well, as I have learned the hard way, the old saw is true: Demanding all or nothing almost invariably guarantees that one will get nothing.
You know, of course, how deeply Ted Kennedy regretted not dealing with Richard Nixon on health care. Those of us who lost a chance for better health care regretted it even more than Kennedy could. Do you happen to know: Has anyone ever done a point-by-point comparison between "Nixon's plan" and Obama's corporatist hodge-podge? I'd be willing to wager that we'd have gotten more from Nixon.
Though I enjoy magical thinking, I have learned to reserve it for daydreams and my science fiction/ fantasy reading.
I have also observed that the biggest talkers are often the biggest whiners, when the worst happens. (And/or they are - or believe they are - secure form the worst of the fallout from such attitudes - just like Ted Kennedy.)
Indeed, you have it: Every large movement has taken time. And politics is a messy endeavor.
What we need most to do is to take it out on Obama: I have contacted the Democratic 'leadership' many times telling them I won't ever vote for another Democrat, if Obama is on the ticket next election cycle. (I am hoping that others will do the same. I don't believe it will get them to dump him, but I am hoping it will get them to to tell him he needs to move left or prepare to turn the White House over to the Republicans.)
As I have been demonstrating: the third-party-only people here have no idea how governments with more than two parties work. I have never gotten an adequate response when I ask: What do you think a few third party Congress members are going to accomplish alone? With whom do you expect them to caucus? What will you do until the party is built up? And what will you do after?
With three vigorous parties - (and for simplicity's sake, I'll include Independents as 'third party') - it's certain that no one party will have a 51% of the vote. The third party-members will need to form a coalition, and it would go a lot better for them, if they had a more progressive Democratic Party to work with. (You know they'll never be able to form a coalition with the Republicans.) But pie-in-the-sky third-party-only people here refuse to recognize that simple fact.
Glad to see I am not quite alone, and there are a few here who aren't blind to reality.
Usually someone will come along and lecture that it starts locally, then to the state level, and that preoccupying ourselves with national politicians is too little too late. I'm not offering that lecture. This was in my email in-box today, from Marnie Glickman, Executive Director of Green Change (greenchange.org):
7 GROWING GREEN CAMPAIGNS
GAYLE MCLAUGHLIN FOR MAYOR (CA)
Gayle McLaughlin is up for reelection in Richmond, California, America's largest city with a Green mayor. Her Green approach to development has drawn challenges from two conservative, developer-backed Democrats. McLaughlin's first-term accomplishments include increasing tax revenue from the city's Chevron oil refinery while lowering small business fees, hiring more community police officers, and making Richmond a center of the emerging solar industry. McLaughlin's supporters include local unions, the trans-partisan Richmond Progressive Alliance, and Green For All founder Van Jones, who has said, "For those of us who are champions for a green economy, there is no more important race in the country." Learn more about Gayle McLaughlin's campaign for reelection and how you can help.
BEN MANSKI FOR ASSEMBLY (WI)
When Ben Manski declared his candidacy for the Wisconsin Assembly, the Madison Capital Times wrote that the "veteran Green Party activist and nationally recognized advocate for democratic reform, [has] entered the competition in the west side district where he cut his political teeth." Since then, the former national Green Party co-chair's campaign has taken off. Manski has won the endorsement of the teachers union, student groups, and 21 local elected officials. Leading Democrats are supporting Manski, in part because his opponent works for the coal and ethanol lobbies. A member of the Dane County Democratic Party's Executive Committee said, "If Ben were 50% better than Hulsey, then I would support Hulsey because he is the Democratic nominee… but Ben is more than 50% better than Hulsey." Manski has raised and spent nearly $20,000, and needs another $25,000 to pay for printing, mailing and radio, tv, and print advertising by October 15th. Learn more about Ben Manski's insurgent campaign and how you can help.
DAN HAMBURG FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY SUPERVISOR (CA)
Dan Hamburg is running for Supervisor in the 5th District of Mendocino County, California. He was the first former Member of Congress to become a Green. Hamburg is Executive Director of Voice Of The Environment, and a committed advocate for sustainable, community-based economics. He finished first in the four-way blanket primary in June, and is now in a head-to-head race with a conservative, developer-backed Democrat, Wendy Roberts, who finished second. Hamburg has earned endorsements from SEIU Local 1021, the North Bay Labor Council AFL-CIO, and Jim Mastin, who finished third in the primary, as well as many others. Learn more about Dan Hamburg's campaign and how you can help.
HOWIE HAWKINS FOR GOVERNOR (NY)
Howie Hawkins is a union Teamster who has spent decades organizing for peace, the environment, and social justice. Hawkins is the only candidate in the NY governor's race to support single-payer health care, banning hydrofracking, and taxing Wall Street to invest in Main Street. He has been traveling New York State to build support for his "Green New Deal" proposal to stimulate the economy with green public works jobs. If Hawkins receives 50,000 votes, the New York Green Party will gain a ballot line for the next 4 years, enabling them to run candidates for peace, justice, democracy and ecology at every level of government. Learn more about Howie Hawkins' campaign and how you can help.
JEREMY KARPEN FOR STATE ASSEMBLY (IL)
Jeremy Karpen is running for Illinois State Assembly in the 39th District, which covers Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood. Karpen won 21% of the vote in 2008 against incumbent Toni Berrios, the daughter of gambling lobbyist and Chicago Democratic machine insider Joseph Berrios. This year, Karpen's grassroots campaign and commitment to clean, progressive politics have earned him endorsements from Independent Voters of Illinois, Chicago Progressive Democrats of America, and the Chicago Tribune. Karpen needs money to get his message to voters and pull off an upset. Learn more about Jeremy Karpen's campaign and how you can help.
ANNIE YOUNG FOR STATE AUDITOR (MN)
Annie Young is running for Minnesota State Auditor. She is one of the longest-serving elected Greens in the US, currently in her sixth term on the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. She is an advocate for using life-cycle cost accounting to make sustainability a key goal of the auditor's office, which oversees more than $20 billion spent annually by local governments in Minnesota. Among Young's supporters is renowned environmental and economic justice activist Winona LaDuke. If she earns 5% of the vote, the Minnesota Green Party will regain "major party" status. That means Minnesota Green candidates won't need to collect petitions signatures to appear on the ballot. "Major party" status will also help Green candidates meet political debate requirements. Learn more about Annie Young's campaign and how you can help.
HUGH GIORDANO FOR STATE HOUSE (PA)
Hugh Giordano is running for Pennsylvania House of Representatives in the 194th District, which covers northwest Philadelphia and parts of Montgomery County. A union organizer who advocates for education, jobs, ethics reform and single-payer health care, Giordano is drawing strong support from organized labor and progressives unimpressed with Democrat Pam DeLissio, a CEO and management consultant. He has been endorsed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 152 as well as Bill Morris, a Democratic union supporter who lost in the May primary. Watch the compelling video endorsement from "Mothers for Hugh." Learn more about Hugh Giordano's campaign and how you can help.
Yes, It makes no difference anyway.
No kidding.
I wouldn't vote for Jane "AIPAC" Harman for Congress here in the 36th C.D. under any circumstances.
I reached out to her Republican opponent and she actually called me and we talked for over a half an hour about every manner of things.
Her name is Mattie Fein. She is a very reasonable woman and her positions on issues are, in many cases, right in step with other Blue Dog Democrats.
I will vote for Mattie Fein and I really won't even have to hold my nose to do so.
Especially realizing that there's an outside chance that my one vote may be the one to defeat Harman.
Don't blame you for not wanting to vote for Harman. But recent history has shown that Republican representatives vote in block the way their reactionary leaders tell them to, so no matter what her personal views are (if they really are what she says), it won't matter when the chips are down.
Last time I checked, that was also pretty true of the "impeachment is off the table" Democrats.
You have a FRIEND request from Karl Rove.
Both the Dims and the Repugs have gotten us to where we are today with almost equal culpabity. Look at NAFTA, Carters M.E. Doctrine,Repeal of Glass-Seagal, and all the subversive and draconian laws passed under Dimo's majorities in Congress.
Hello, good chance Repugs, if given the chance will impeach OilyBomber.
The sad fact is that the WHOLE SYSTEM is rotten to the core, today no side of it is acceptable.
Sometimes one must gamble on something different in order to succeed. Even if it means regressing for a time before true progress occurs.
These last two years have primarily seen a continuation and sometimes an acceleration as in "State Secret", Drones, Assassinations, Military Budget, New Nuclear Weapons, Tar Sands, Nuclear Energy, Off Shore Oil, and Fracking of Bush policies.
Vote third party and party as OilyBomber is impeached.
I don't think curiousteve is curious at all. He firmly believes that there are only two choices. Vote for one bunch of toadies of the rich or the other equally corrupt party. I want neither the Democrats nor the Republicans to be in power. These are two corporate political parties that dance to the tune of the banksters and don't give diddly squat about a democratic government of the people, by the people or for the people.
Vote independent not corporate. A pox on both heads of the corporate monster.
The BoogyMen are coming! The BoogyMen are coming! - run for cover... but, before you do please pull the 'D' lever in the booth. Thank you very much.
Another braindead wrangler for the 'Lesser Evil Corporate Fascist Party' !
What a useless douche.
One could critically dissect virtually every line in this dissembling fish story, but it would be a total waste of time... much like the article itself.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/nich-s06.shtml
'The Nation': on the Detroit march for “Jobs, Justice and Peace”: Deceit and self-delusion
In the most impoverished city in America, with a real jobless rate of about 50 percent, the fact that only a few thousand turned out to hear Jackson and King, despite a major buildup for the event by the local media, testifies to the lack of significant popular support for or belief in the two figures and the organizations they represent.
And for good reason. Why should anyone have the slightest confidence in millionaire charlatans such as Jackson, with a record of defending the profit system that goes back decades, or union officials like King, who has helped preside over the destruction of tens of thousands of auto jobs and the halving of auto workers’ pay?
Same bullshit speechifying - different venue!
I live in Wisconsin and I think Russ Feingold is a fine Senator. He's not perfect (who is?) but he's got my vote on Nov. 2.
That being said, Feingold is the exception that proves the rule that Democrats are mainly a bunch of equivocating cowards. I'm tired of being told every two years that "If we don't vote for the cowards, the sociopaths will take control!' Wow, that's really inspirational.
When I was a high school counselor, I sometimes talked to girls who had verbally abusive boyfriends. Nearly every time, they excused the guy's behavior by saying something like, "Well, at least he doesn't hit me." When I criticize Democrats in talking with some of my progressive friends, they'll say, "Well, at least they're not like the Republicans."
Both excuses are equally lame. Sorry, Mr. Naiman, but I'm done voting for candidates just to prevent other ones from getting elected.
The author tells us to donate to candidates because the wealthy donate to candidates.
Anybody who hasn't been locked in a closet their whole life should know that the wealthy get something in return (from the candidates they own) other than the admonition to suck it up.
Ray, you could feed your comment steroids and it would still be true because with the Citizens United ecision, the situation is really that bad.
Glenn Greenwald supports the Citizens United decision as a valid protection of civil liberties, notwithstanding its practical "side-effect" of commodifying said liberties. The more money one has to spend, the more freely one can exercise rights of free speech and expression.
This view, popular with libertarians, absurdly equates predatory capitalist (for-profit) corporations with non-profits. It sympathetically treats behemoths like Verizon or BP as if they were merely benevolent groups or associations banded together to achieve a common benevolent purpose-- like Daddy and Mommy and Bub and Sis trooping down to the neighbor's to help with a barn-raising.
And yet his "Accountability Now" project solicits funds to challenge anti-progressive incumbents. And he recently effusively praised Russ Feingold while urging readers to donate to a "money bomb" for Feingold.
I've been commenting regularly at his site for years, and am generally well-received. But the sycophantic comments Heathers there were not pleased at all when I suggested that Glenn, whom I generally respect and admire, had some nerve suggesting that struggling citizens cough up a few bucks to compete with the financial Goliaths enabled by the Citizens United decision.
OK, you're done "voting for candidates just to prevent other ones from getting elected." Let's take that as a given.
Nonetheless, you support Russ Feingold, correctly noting that he is much better than the average Democratic Senator, and worth voting for, because he is not just better than the other guy; he is a progressive champion. On this we are in 100% agreement.
But consider this. Russ Feingold may be defeated. Why is this even a possibility, given who Russ Feingold is?
To a significant degree because, I submit, there is a general demobilization among progressive Democrats. And this is a national phenomenon: even *progressive Democrats* are in trouble because of the general demobilization of progressive Democrats.
And this is the point of my piece. You're not willing to support Democrats who are only better than the Republicans they are running against? So be it. Mobilize for the progressive champions. Don't punish Russ Feingold for the sins of Obama by sitting on your hands. Don't just vote for the progressive champions: get out and rock the vote.
Sir, if I may ask, what is the point of trying to keep a party currently on life support alive when it would be much better if we pulled the plug and rebuilt it from Ground Zero? Your article resembles the Christian "conservatives" trying to save Terri Schiavo in 2005. It would be better to let Feingold go so that he may build a new movement with a fresh start rather than trying to salvage a burning building that can no longer be saved. Progressives such as Feingold are like PRISONERS in the Democratic Party and he doesn't deserve to be treated like that. What are you suggesting that progressives and liberals mobilize for, REAL FREEDOM to start a new course or CONTINUED ENSLAVEMENT to eternal doom?
Right On the button!!! ```````I hope Russ runs as an independent.......building into the Shot Heard Around the fatally duopolitistic World! signaling the start of real change!! Maybe! No more corrupted corporation $$$ controlled business as usual!
In general the bills you mention are not quite as horrible as you imagine. If humans were just a little less greedy and a touch more sane, a lot of problems associated with these bills would have caused far less damage. It's also true that some bills such as the commodity bill, while sometimes blamed for rising food prices, also helps keep prices lower in the long run by giving farmers an incentive to produce more food. 'Globalization' has been the media mantra for some time now. Laws are rather naturally changed to accommodate this. People live and learn. Changes to these bills have been happening and will continue. Everything would seem better if the rich weren't always getting richer, while poverty increases. Nothing is more important than legislation to change this. And Democrats offer the only hope here.
"If humans were just a little less greedy and a touch more sane, a lot of problems associated with these bills would have caused far less damage."
Don't you mean "if the feudal lords of our economy were just a little less greedy and a touch more sane..."? Dream on.
And what, pray tell, is the "commodity bill" you speak of?
Laws are not "rather naturally" changed. In this country, in this era, laws are quite deliberately changed by our corporate owned government, to favor the highest paid echelons of those multinational corporations.
"[W]hat is the point of trying to keep a party currently on life support alive when it would be much better if we pulled the plug and rebuilt it from Ground Zero? " What the heck does that mean, in practical terms?
Once again, Max, if you split Congress three ways, you will need two parties to work in tandem to be effective. Either it will be the Dems and the third party (plus any progressive Independents), or it will be the Dems and the Republicans. Let the Democratic Party continue moving rightward, and you are hurting the prospects for any progresive third party to establish itself.
You may not like the Dems - (and I detest a number of them, as well as their definite right-of-center position) - but we are stuck with them. So rehabilitating them is the only viable option. That requires supporting any Democratic primary candidate who is even a bit to the left of his/ her opponent. Several went down, and it is my belief that it was in part because of the belief that the party is hopeless. (Can you say 'self-fulfilling prophecy'?)
The only other hope is that the Republican Party really is imploding, which, years from now, would leave us with the Dems as the conservative party and the 'third party os the liberal. However, with the large number of regressives we are saddled with in this country, I don''t see it happening.
By the way, what makes you think that Feingold is interested in building a new movement? What does that mean? A new party?
If you had any respect for Feingold, why wouldn'y you let him decide whether or not he feels like a prisoner and opt out - or stay - by his own decision?
I used to be a strong Democratic Party faithful even in 2004 when Kerry ran a dumb campaign. My support had peaked in 2005 when I voted for Tim Kaine just to put away that wingnut Jerry KILgore for governor. In 2006, I was dumb enough to assume that Jim Webb was really a progressive populist despite being a Reagan Democrat and tooting his horns on gun rights a little too often. Mark Warner I totally gave up on after he had received a big endorsement from the US Chamber of Commerce. I was getting to be more supportive of Nader but on the last minute, I chose Obama having no hope that Nader would be able to change a thing. I have since been more attentive to more local races and the picture stinks. 2009 was a useless gubernatorial election seeing DLC wannabee Creigh Deeds running a failure campaign with glee and siding with mountaintop removal. Mcdonnell, despite his issues, won and by 16 points. It has been getting clear since 2007 and more clear since 2009 that the Democratic Party has been working very hard to fail itself. Third parties are useless as well as far as winning an election on the federal level is concerned. For this election, neither of my senators are up for reelection and the House race in my district is useless. Between Congressman Glenn Nye and Republican challenger Scott Rigell, owner of Ford Dealerships in VA Beach, both of them are more poised to work with Bachmann than either would with Kucinich or Grayson. As far as Feingold is concerned, what I think he's doing is silly but it's his call. I hate to see the Democratic Party die but it has been too hell bent on fulfilling its own political death wish what with the way they have been behaving while in power for 4 years in Congress alone and 2 years in both Congress and White House so we might as well let the party go down in flames this November and November 2012.
Third parties are out of the question as I don't have much third party presence in my district or state itself but I would choose them if I could. The only third party presence in my district is Kenny Golden but he's a useless Tea Party member so screw this election year. I might as well not vote since I have no viable choice this election. If I do choose to vote, I'll just do a write-in for JESUS CHRIST. Maybe he'll change the party from within better than anyone else.
Max, I believe that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is going to die. At least, not in our lifetimes. The Republican Party may very well be imploding, but I doubt it will die. (Though they may have spawned a third party, currently sheltering within the Republican Party - and they are the ones who most need to be stopped.)
I understand that Blue Dogs are really Republicans, and indeed jettisoning a few of them would make little (if any) immediate difference. In the longer run, it will leave a seat open for a real Democrat to make a run for.
No progressive third party candidates where you are? Well, you are hardly alone. That's really my point: there's no well-established third party yet, which renders the third-party-or-none voters' argument mere sloganeering: great idea, but utterly impractical.
There were progressives running in primaries, and too many of them lost - lost to well-funded opponents with highly motivated supporters. Lost chances to reform the party.
Will you want/ need Social Security? Medicare? Does/ will anyone you know want/ need them? Have you ever known anyone who needed Medicaid? food stamps? public schools? county hospitals? Do you want green technology? less offshoring? a chance to grab that opening for a public option? Kiss every chance for any and all of it good-bye, if the Republicans take back the Congress. Far from saying, Too hell with the Democrats, I would love to see a filibuster-proof non-Blue Dog Dem majority: that would force them to act like Democrats or admit that they are no longer the Democratic Party.
I'm trying to look at legislation that was put forth by the Dems, but killed or filibustered by the Republicans and Blue Dogs. (An insult to dogs, and a spectral lie.) The latest of which I heard: the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act.
Or how about DeMint and the Republicans refusing to give subpoena power to the new commission to be charged with investigating the BP oil spill in the Gulf?
Senate Republicans have essentially shut down the Senate. They (with Blue Dog help) forced a watering down and paring back of the stimulus and are blocking all attempts at another - and that was just for a starter. The House has been legislating like mad, and the Senate Republicans have killed and/ or filibustered most of it.
And the list of appointments blocked is ridiculous - and far longer than the list of Bush appointments that triggered the idiotic 'nuclear option' show. The Republicans have made it clear: they will block most legislation, specifically any that would help the majority of the people, and let the electorate take it out on the Dems at the polls.
The parties are not the same. For all the valid complaints about the Dems - (and I have a very long list) - it is just plain disingenuous for anyone to say that, overall, there is no difference. I think the Democratic Party can be reformed. Indeed, it must be reformed, if there is any hope for a progressive third party.
Despite my retreat from the world around me, I still look at things out there in practical terms. And I'm sorry Max, but I don't see how sentiments such as 'Let the Democratic Party die' make any practical sense.
By the way, I have never been a die-hard Democratic voter; in fact, I've never registered as a Democrat. Things have changed, though, and there's no doubt in my mind that keeping the Republican Party out of power is very important.
Good for you that you can escape the country, but many of us cannot do so. And those of stuck here will have to bear the burden of any Republican takeover. The only reason I may have a chance to get out is that I lost my home due to illness, and I have just enough capital from its sale to cover some major surgery that I have been putting off and to support me for the last few years of my life following that. I can do so in Europe for roughly what it costs me to live here in Chicago - which is not particularly cheap.
Photon, you made me go back and look for more info on Glenn Nye.
http://www.glennnye.com/issues
You know something? I can't believe I let my anger throw me overboard. I mean the guy voted against the bailouts, for small business tax cuts which my wife and I will need now that we're both unemployed but ready to start a small business with a few friends, against Congressional payraises just like Feingold did in the Senate, against Obamacare although I was disappointed with his recent response of refusing to repeal it if given the chance, and not privatizing veterans' health care. I can't say he's a progressive by any serious means but I would hate to see that Ford dealership guy Scott Rigell take his place. Maybe I was a bit too crazy with my write-in preference. I don't like the choices but in my case, since there are no progressive third parties the Democrat gets my reluctant vote once again. If the Republicans take over Congress, then let's see if Obama will use his veto powers and his Democrats remaining in Congress will use their minority powers for once. It won't mean much but it will stall the Republican agenda. I just don't trust that they'll do it.
I was thinking of leaving the country but my wife and I have second thoughts and it's mixed so we'll have to hold that off until later. Costs of living in Asia aren't an issue so much as getting used to the cultures there which would take a while.
Max, I recently found out that even in places where Green Party candidates announce that they are running early on, there is no way to know when they dropped out. Until recently, the last time I checked my candidate's website for Senate was August 15 but they had NOTHING on Midge dropping out on July 27. I like what the Green Party has to offer in terms of platform but their organizing and informing voters stinks. Now, the only "third parties" left to vote for are Libertarian, Constitution, and a couple of fringe rightwing "conservative independents" for Senate. My uncle, Stanley1979, suggested that I vote Carnahan after he found out first about this. Carnahan is nothing close to Russ Feingold let alone a true progressive. A write in for Midge Potts to voice my protest will do. Besides, Carnahan or Blunt, my state loses good representation anyway.
Jennifer, I suggest you look closely at Carnahan vs Blunt before you make the final decision to do a write-in. Maybe it looks good but I don't know your candidates very well. You should be able to detect better. If Carnahan is like a Zell Miller Democrat, then mea culpa. Otherwise, your uncle and Photons Feather are right. The Green Party is messed up right now and has poor organizing skills to be our third party out of the Democratic Party.
Max, glad to hear of the turn-around. As I just wrote in a comment to Jennifer B, I think the Dems have done a lousy job of getting their message across. Yeah, they've passed some crappy legislation, no doubt; but even in that there is some good. Health care: millions more with access to health care, and the CBO has determined that even the watered down bill will reduce the deficit by billions. Plus, I've several times heard that there is a provision which actually opens the door to a public option in the future, and it was asserted that that is the main reason the bill drives the neocons insane. (I'll have to look into that, should I find the time.)
I suspect many have no idea either how much or how little their own congress-members have done. Anger is a dangerous emotion, and it causes harm in more ways than just the obvious. You know me from AlterNet and the single-payer/ public option arguments during the drawing up of the health care bill, and you know how disgusted I was at every stage of that massive sell-out. However, I will not vote to take its meager offerings from the many who are helped by them. What kind of person says, "I didn't get what I wanted/ needed, so you shouldn't have what you need"? That's not my definition of 'progressive.' (Hey, I don't have friends with whom I can start a business - so why should you and your wife get any help from the government to do what circumstances prevent me from doing?! Sounds both disgusting and ludicrous, doesn't it?)
Don't have any faith in Obama personally, but he is a political animal, and he wants a second term. With Emanuel and Summers gone, others may be able to convince him: if he doesn't move left, he's dead (politically). There are quite a few Dems that understand this, so let's hope they can get through to him. And of course, we have to keep after everyone. There are no guarantees of success, but throwing up our hands and walking away will guarantee failure.
Shall check out your link very soon.
I spent some time hunting it down, so here is a link to The Power of Nightmares, (in case you've missed it):
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bbc-documentary-power-nightmares
The Crooks and Liars article is old, but the link still works - just followed it straight to the BBC site, to check it out.
Scary enough for you?
"However, I will not vote to take its meager offerings from the many who are helped by them."
That's not a bad idea but given that forcing someone to purchase from a set of corporations is unconstitutional, this bill will be completely repealed should it go to the courts unless there is some way to save the good provisions while repealing the rest and I don't expect Congress to get that done, this one or next
I'm not surprised that neoconservatives in the US and radical Muslim groups are strange bedfellows but thanks for the reminder. For bullying other nations, I feel that the US empire must be forced to crumble.
I had in mind such things as:
- the increase of the maximum income to qualify for Medicaid,
- the end of caps on lifetime benefits (for those who have insurance), and
- the option for people to keep their kids on their insurance coverage until 25.
(I think it's 25.)
As I said, "I will not vote to take its meager offerings from the many who are helped by them." I never said I wanted to maintain the bill in its entirety, or that I wouldn't want to repeal quite a few provision, but rather that I wouldn't want simply to jettison the entire bill (as the Republicans want to do).
"the increase of the maximum income to qualify for Medicaid,"
I'm a dummy on that one but I'm in my 40s.
"the end of caps on lifetime benefits (for those who have insurance)"
The "for those who have insurance" part irks me some. I don't have any health insurance and I'm not doing COBRA.
"the option for people to keep their kids on their insurance coverage until 25"
With the economy getting worse, that can't be too hard to grab for the offering.
But doesn't this rely on the insurance companies behaving well? If the insurance companies are given "slap in the wrist" at most fines, what's to stop them from denying as always? If this Democratic Party wants to tell us that they have no intention of pooling together the taxpayer money and providing even a basic health care package for all but tell us to purchase from the corporations or get fined and there's no serious penalty for insurance companies, I dunno what to say but they gave us more corporate fascism. It will get interesting if those premiums go up since there is nothing to stop them that I know of. The bill's too big to read and people don't even know what they're really getting when they pay for insurance until their coverage doesn't help them when it's needed the most. I feel like the insurance companies are laughing and egging us.
That first referred to Medicaid, not Medicare. Qualifying for Medicaid is based on income.
(There was a change to Medicare, but exactly what it was escapes me. The 'donut hole' comes to mind, but don't bank on it having anything to do with that.)
Look, Max, I am not defending the entire bill. What I am saying is that there are people who now have access to health care who did not have before.
Enough of us? No, not by a long shot.
That we are expected to buy insurance from the degenerates who really did run death panels? Sticks in my craw. (Once again, have you no recollection of how irate I was over first that single-payer was 'off the table' from the start? and how outraged I was that the public option was 'negotiated away' before Obama actually began real negotiations?)
I despise the insurance companies, and I am far more than irked by the requirement that anyone should be tied to them.
I'm older than you, but not old enough for Medicare (and indeed it is not very likely that I will make long enough to qualify for it). I'm not particularly well, and I have been without insurance - and without adequate medical care - for years. (In fact, I've rarely had insurance.) I'll add to that: over the years I've reached deep into my pocket a number of times in order to consult a doctor - and repeatedly run into a horrific fact: we have a lot of ignorant, incompetent jerks who sport 'M.D.' after their names, but who are incapable of diagnosing anything much more serious than the measles. And that's without addressing the liars and frauds. Add to that my disgust with the FDA. (Believe me, the side-effects from medications that I've been subject to often driven me to despair.)
However, as I said, I am not willing to let the Republicans take away the little that some people have gained, just because I am not one of the beneficiaries. That doesn't mean I like the bill. And it certainly doesn't absolve the Dems for that atrocity. We definitely need new legislation - but it isn't coming soon.
I'm sorry the bill is of no help to you. I'm sorry it is of no help to a lot of us - including me. Indeed, I find it outrageous. (How many times do I have to say it?) However, I am not an all-or-nothing kind of guy - in the short run.
While your criticisms of the bill and the insurance companies are certainly valid, they have nothing to do with my comment, though it appears to me that you think they do. (Perhaps a little music...?)
(Perhaps a little music...?)
Watching the Amadeus movie will do. :-)
Robert, I'd like to see your evidence that Feingold will lose his seat because of what you call the general "demobilization" of Democrats. I'd argue that Russ Feingold may be defeated because the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts (who faced stiff opposition from the Democrats during his appointment--oh wait, no he didn't), has removed any and all limits on the "rights" of corporate "persons" to spend whatever they want to influence elections. Once you allow Omnicorp to spend unlimited sums of money "influencing" elections, I think you're pretty naive to insist that how I vote really determines the outcome.
I'd also like to remind you that the Democrats aren't "demobilized." What is the case is that those on the left who don't really want to support the Democrats and who also, ironically, constitute the Democratic "base" are sick and tired of being taken for granted. The Democrats don't own our votes, just by being the "less bad" alternative. The Democrats need to get that through their collective heads: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES NOT OWN PROGRESSIVE VOTES. If I vote this year, it will be for whatever progressive third-party candidates are on the ballot, and if the Democrats lose because of taking those like me for granted, FUCK THEM. Maybe then they'll remember who they work for next election-time and they will move leftward. Will that have a negative effect on the working class? Maybe, but seeing as how I currently work THREE jobs to make ends meet, that makes me part of that demographic, and so I'm willing to take that risk.
Plus, it isn't as if the Democrats provide a real alternative to the Republicans anymore. The scare tactics worked before the last presidential election, because eight years of Bush really sucked. Seeing as how Obama has given more money to the banksters than even Bush did and that Obama has been even more regressive in regard to civil liberties and restraints on executive power, I'm at a loss as to how voting R rather than D or "None of the above" can really make things worse. Apparently, so are the millions of young voters who got disillusioned REAL FAST after voting for CHANGE and getting CONTINUITY.
I would never monkey around with such perfect logic, Rev!
Dear RTM,
Of course, *your individual vote* would be unlikely by itself to change the outcome, even if we had public financing of elections. It's a collective action. No one *individual* contribution is likely, by itself, to change the outcome. Nonetheless, a moral and rational person thinks about how their individual action contributes to the collective outcome.
Is it likely that if the Republicans take the Congress in part because some progressives sit the election out, the lesson that most Democrats will draw is that they must be more progressive? Is there significant historical evidence to support this claim? Elsewhere, you argue that money will trump. If that were so, would it not be at least as likely that many Democrats would conclude they must do more to cater to those with money? Won't your protest therefore be ineffectual?
Are you strongly enough convinced of your argument that you would sit out the election in which Russ Feingold is running for re-election? Are you strongly enough convinced of this argument to urge others to do so?
Protest votes or not, the Democrats have made it clear that they hate the Left in general and progressives in particular. They've become a center-right conservative party that cynically uses the "big tent" to win elections. Center-left voters will vote for them only because people like you lie and use scare tactics to whip them into submission. You obviously could care less if the Democrats stand for anything or not.
You also acknowledge that Democrats follow the money. Therefore, what makes you think that protest votes are the only votes they'll dismiss? Since much like the Republicans, Democrats listen to those with the biggest donations regardless of what they stand for. At the end of the day, the Democrats don't care whether their supporters are progressive or not. They've put their careers above their principles. If the Democrats needed progressives, they wouldn't dismiss them as "idiot liberals" or "the Professional Left".
Furthermore, Democrats like Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich are drops in the bucket. Whether they keep their seats or not has no ramifications on the center-right politics of the Democratic Party. They have also proven that they'll easily and readily abandon their progressive principles when their seats are threatened. That hardly makes them "progressive champions". Also by them staying in the Democratic Party, they're reinforcing the two-party system.
The Democratic Party is a part of the problem, not the solution. They've been moving rightward and do everything they can to aliente and marginalize the Left. Keeping them in power makes no difference because no matter what the Republicans will bully them. The Republicans pretty much still control the country since they know Democrats will compromise and triangulate to save their careers.
I know you'll deny this and ignore the reality on the ground though. Partisanship and cult of personality override principles and ideals. As I stated before, you're living fat off of your pundit career, so it makes no difference to you whether the Democrats have principles or not.
RN 7:44 -- Watch your logic.
Obviously it is commonly known that Progressives are telling Dimo's to take a hike, otherwise you yourself would not have written this article.
So when the Dimo's get deservedly smashed because the Progessives have said "enough is Enough"
Then it would be extremely disingenous to claim that the Dimo's would not clearly understand the exact reason they get the trouncing they so justly deserve.
Ipso Facto
Voting is not a collective action. This is some sort of newspeak - "our individual personal choices are...collective action." So if 10 million people all have the same brand of cereal for breakfast every morning is that then collective action? Hardly, except in some fantasy land of advertisers and marketers. More like a herd being driven and controlled by commercial advertising than any collective action. Would 10 million people all making "the right choice" for breakfast tomorrow make any difference? Many people would have you believe that this is how social change happens - they will argue that it is the only way that social change can happen. All of that talk is for the very purpose of preventing collective action. "You can really make a difference with your personal choices!!" is the pitch. Clearly that pitch is being presented as an alternative to collective action, or otherwise we would never hear it at all.
I don't think anyone believes that merely failing to vote will bring about change. However, dumping the illusions and fantasies about voting most certainly can lead to change. None of this is rally about voting, that is just a stalking horse for something else. No one cares about whether or not we vote, but they care very much about what we say in regards to voting. This is all about controlling the message and suppressing dissent, not about voting.
Speaking for myself, I am extremely certain that sitting out an election (or voting for an alternative) is the right thing to do, even if it costs Feingold, and I absolutely am telling everyone that. It is child's play to make an extraordinarily powerful case for this with almost everyone I talk to. After years of feeeling compelled
"Are you strongly enough convinced of your argument that you would sit out the election in which Russ Feingold is running for re-election?"
As I am not a Wisconsin voter, that point is moot.
"Are you strongly enough convinced of this argument to urge others to do so?"
Nope. Never have urged others not to vote, to my recollection. I have questioned the purpose of voting in our non-representative electoral system, and I have discussed my choice to not vote. Thankfully I still have the right to do both of these things.
What I am "strongly enough convinced of" is that I am sick and tired of our sham democracy and that I no longer want to participate in it if my views are not represented AT ALL. I am also strongly convinced that the Democrat electoral policy consists of two elements: (1) using threats of Republican victories to cajole votes out of all liberal, progressive, and left constituents, and then (2) rejecting all the values, policies, and positions of those constituents once elected. (3) Mock the very people whose votes got you into office seems to be the new low to which institutional Democrats will stoop.
I don't think I need to convince people not to vote. The Democratic party does a good enough job of that without my assistance.