EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats Need Their Own Tea Party
The Democrats' left wing needs a Tea Party.
Not THE Tea Party, the gaggle of conservative activists who played such a large role in Republican politics in the runup to the midterm elections. But a Tea Party of their very own. Otherwise, they will finally have blown the chance to take America in a genuinely progressive direction.
Many leftwingers in America are in deep despair. After all the hope and promise of 2008, they feel President Barack Obama spent the first two years of his term pointlessly reaching out to a Republican party that played him (successfully) for a fool. Obama's healthcare reforms ended up a compromised muddle. He failed to lead on gay rights. He rescued the banks and let them make even more profits than before. The system that took us to the brink of economic catastrophe is back up and running with few changes and less punishment.
And, for all his pains, Obama then suffered a historic drubbing at the polls. His answer? To move even more to the right and buy into the Republicans' false argument that Obama's problems are somehow because he was a lefty radical – a "socialist", by their accounts.
No wonder the left is angry.
Which is why they need to take a leaf out of the Tea Party's book and actually do something about it. Enough talking: time for real action.
Whatever you think of the Tea Party's actual politics, you have to admire their courage and tenacity and willingness to organise and work for their beliefs. Even when all the received wisdom of the political classes said they were on a hiding to nothing.
The Tea Party's situation is an exact parallel to the left's current malaise. The Tea Party's supporters thought they were not being listened to. They saw a party political leadership out of touch with their base and what their base wanted. So, they organised.
They backed candidates in Republican primaries who espoused their rightwing beliefs and they ran them against the Republican establishment. Sometimes, they won big. But, more importantly, even when they lost, they often only did so because they forced the Republican elite to adopt their Tea Party agenda. They dragged the Republican party to the right even as many said that was electoral suicide. They stuck to their values and they ended up triumphing at the polls. Their gamble paid off.
Now the Democrats' left needs to grow a spine and do the same. It needs to reject the current rush to the right as espoused by retiring Democratic Senator Evan Bayh and his ilk. The left needs to mimic the Tea Party by organising its own candidates who will run against establishment Democrats in primary contests. It needs to take action and force the party's leadership to listen – with a genuine threat on the ground, not just talking shops and outraged op-eds. It needs to grab the party and drag it left, accepting the reality that, without a fight, the left will always be paid lip service to by Democratic leaders, but ignored when it comes to policy (just as the pre-Tea Party conservative Republican right was).
But that, many will say, would be a recipe for electoral defeat. But they already tried the opposite – moving the right – and failed. And the pragmatism argument is what they told the Tea Party as well, and look what happened there. Perhaps the Democrats, too, need to swap a constant search for the middle with a switch to energising and enthusing their base.
To borrow Howard Dean's old rallying cry from 2003, isn't it about time someone represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"? It is. But it won't be Obama. It needs to be ordinary Democrats themselves.
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...
116 Comments so far
Show AllLook at Massachusetts: we re-elected all of our progressive Democrats. Watch out Scott Brown.
We need an October Revolution.
The Tea Party is not the model to follow. It was marginally successful, and it will soon be overpowered and ignored in Congress by the Republicans. Instead, we must have a decisive break from the corporate-owned Democratic Party. We will never change the party from within--that has been an historic fantasy, but proven wrong election after election. Only a third, Progressive Party, with a strong platform of no war, single payer, and jobs will challenge the greed and myopia of Republicans and Democrats. Today's Democratic Party has adopted endless war as a policy, has embraced corporate interests, and has accepted high unemployment rates rather than prohibiting companies from moving overseas. In other words, it has accepted the myth of the free market system and will wage endless war to keep it. That's our future if we don't send them packing. Trying to reform them from within will only result in progressive compromises year after year.
Amen!
Double Amen!
echo.
yes ma'am .....
Most important is that this Progressive Party fundamentally stand for cooperative, not competitive, principles of behavior and social organization. We already have two political parties that represent and further the goals of a hyper-competitive society. Look at the result.
Think about it. For instance:
No war. Without that option that means cooperative diplomacy to establish international relationships.
Single payer. Not commodification of basic human rights.
Jobs. Again, not the commodification of a basic human right.
While capitalism persists, cooperation is most likely to promote further consolidation of monopoly. Monopolies have their own interests that are opposed to the public interest, the market interest, and even the interests of shareholders.
Artaslife - Your three points, e.g., No War, Single Payer, Jobs [in country] make one heck of a Platform. Anyone who has a brain to think and reason with should be able to see that.
What this "movement" [for lack of a better term] will need is someone with Obama's charisma. I absolutely canNOT stand Sister Sarah, but I will grudgingly give her credit for attracting attention to whatever it is the Fringe was/is responding to. She may be a joke to more than the Dems, but she is not going away anytime soon. Who do you have in mind to balance her influence? No offense to Dennis Kucinich, but he is not marketable, and (sadly) in America you NEED attractive, marketable candidates [otherwise Kucinich might have been elected POTUS by now.] Even democrats are shallow.
Thanks to the right-stacked SCOTUS and their cute decision on Citizens United, whatever alternate group that does have the audacity to go against the Corporate Interests will not get dime one from them, but will get a whole sh*tload of cash stacked against them. A couple of days ago we all saw how much cash was thrown into negative and opposing advertising - can "we" compete with that and if so, how?
"What this "movement" [for lack of a better term] will need is someone with Obama's charisma."
Beware of politicians with "charisma". And your use of the term "marketable" indicates how deeply the values of "market based thinking" have penetrated our society.
Kucinich was shafted at first, now has surrendered. He would have been "marketable" if enough of us had chosen to "market" him. It's too late now. Admit that one of the reasons Obama was "marketable" was because he was half black/half white. Make him just another "white guy" and see how "charismatic" he would have been considered.
If we don't start connecting with folks on other than a "market" level, we are, indeed toast - let's try "marketing" that idea ....
I still like Kucinich. I'll send a few bucks to keep him in office.
i used to, not any more .....
Pardon me, but how has Kucinich "surrendered"? That needs some explanation.
He surrendered when he voted for the giveaway to health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals known as Obamacare. He sold his soul, God knows for what.
I am simply pointing out the obvious. I am not supporting anyone. I thought this forum was to look for new ideas. Thing is, sometimes you must work from the inside out to change stuff you don't like. You can't force people to like what you like. So the American culture has deteriorated into a market-based culture - I hate that, you hate that - so what? You can sit around and wank against that all you want; if, however, you really want to change stuff I guess you have two methods. One would be falling back on the precious Second Amendment that the Tea Baggers love to talk about and flash around. Seriously, a lot of good that would do. Been to any good concentration camps lately? Personally, I'd just as soon steer clear of those. The other option is to work with the system, at least for starts.
As far as not recruiting someone with charisma, what would you suggest? I happen to like Kucinich, and I agree that he was dismissed (shafted) pretty much only because he is short and sort of funny-looking; if he looked Robert Redford in his prime he would probably be POTUS right now, but it is what it is. You want to change things, I want to change things. Grab as many people like Kucinich as you can to build your platform, but - and here is the sh*tty part - you gotta be be realistic when you choose your frontman/woman.
Why are we looking around for a leader, for a charismatic figure or a celebrity?
Leadership emerges in the heat of the struggle. You can't predict who that will be.
Why are we looking among the crowd of existing leaders and celebrities? That makes no sense. We should be cautious about allowing them to be rank and file members, let alone leaders.
If you are seriously saying that we should moderate our activities for fear of concentration camps, then the situation is far more drastic then your solution would suggest - working within the system. Either we are under the threat of being placed in camps if we do anything - you recommend under those circumstances that we do whatever it takes to avoid that, and to tailor our political ideas and activities accordingly, which means comply and submit and don't rock the boat - in which case forming a new party or lining up behind some politician is not going to accomplish anything, or we are not under a threat of being placed in camps if we do anything and you are simply disingenuously using that to scare people and herd them back into the system.
YO: I beg to differ on the "charisma thing."
Do you honestly think a fat, grotesque windbag like Rush Limbaugh has charisma? What he has is deep pocket/$ backers who resonate with his divisive messages, and therefore grant him an amazing amount of exposure via air time.
How different is that for Sarah?
This article doesn't even grant ONE sentence to the glaring fact of who owns the media and why it is that they blasted the "success" of the Tea Party everywhere, until message manifested as consensual reality. That is precisely the mechanism that explains why corporations pay a good deal for advertising. Product recognition and placement factor heavily into sales! These political icons are the political equivalent of marketing, brand naming, and packaging. CONTENT be damned! (As we're all catching on now.)
Where is equal support for speakers, platforms, and positions resonant with the Left?
In short, it ain't about charisma. It's about WHO gets the megaphone! Expensive PR people and experts on make-up and dress help the cause, particularly when the elite powers get behind the coronation of their next puppet.
The movement you are speaking of would need first and foremost, for an appeal to the more intelligent sector to break away from the Corporate Tit and embrace a progressive ideology based in intelligence & logic. Were this to happen in large enough numbers that a Progressive Party could gain serious traction, I would imagine things like negative adds & derogatory "news" reports would be less and less successful.
Meg Whitman poured over 6Xs the amount of $$$ into her negative campaign, and look where that got her. The general consensus that I could gather from my fellow Californians (I am a recent east coast transplant) was, "Oh, she's not fooling anyone, we know her gimmick."
So it really comes down to which part of the electorate you are trying to appeal to, and whether or not the intellectual foundation is present. If you are trying to sell Progressive ideology to the South, you better do it based on economics. To the northeast and west coast, on the ideology itself. To the midwest & corn belt- well good luck with that one.
Rick Scott spent some 50 million dollars of his own money just to win the Republican gubernatorial primary in Florida. He essentially bought the nomination. He barely won in the general election, but he did win.
The point isn't that the highest spender always wins (just most the time), but that if you don't have enough money chances are overwhelming that just about nobody will ever hear of you. And those that do hear of you, whether you like it or not, will be highly tempted to vote for someone else even if they prefer you. The whole election process is bought from start to finish.
For a summary of the success rate of the campaign spending of those shadowy outside groups see this article from Mother Jones:
"The Billion-Dollar Batting Averages of 2010's Shadow Spenders" by Andy Kroll.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/american-crossroads-american-action-network-secret
I agree with you that progressives need to know how to talk to different audiences. Different regions of the country need different approaches. If ever there were an opportunity to get the "intelligensia" to break away from the "corporate tit" this is it.
"Different regions of the country need different approaches. If ever there were an opportunity to get the "intelligensia" to break away from the "corporate tit" this is it."
It is possible for a common strategy to prevail coupled with regional strategies. Populist progressive thinking comes to mind.
Artas 1:26 Excellente!
I think the party you're looking for already exists.
http://socialistparty-usa.org/
Or the Greens ....
Saved me a post.Aquifer ,tax justice ,election reform disarmament,disengagement,energy reorientation,all would cut working and middle class taxes dramatically.
peas
Either or, I've belonged to both at different times over the last 30 years. But in order to emerge would require movement from WITHIN the system. The Democratic Party has never backed progressive members of the Party (e.g., McKinney, Kucinich) and is now controlled by the DLC.
If half a dozen progressive House members were to announce at a press conference that they were dropping the D Party and joining the Greens ... yes it would interrupt the "balance" for awhile, but it would start an avalanche disruptive of the two party system which, because it is too easy to control, is at the heart of our problems. Wall St. can buy two parties, but not a true multi party system.
That would be interesting; I'd buy front row seats for that.
Do you think there's any prospect of a merger between the two? I really think the left needs to pool its resources as much as possible at this stage.
Actually, I've never understood why the Greens don't join the Dems en masse, since they aren't interested on ending capitalism at all. It seems like a good fit to me. This is how the religious right took over the Republican party in the Eighties, and it could work for the Greens, too, if they were at all a serious party, but from what I can tell, they are not interested in governing, only talking.
I disagree, 3rd parties are pretty easily kept out by the rigged elections system. Why not take over the Dems? The blue dogs are mostly gone now having been replaced by Gopers. This is our moment to try and take over the party. Obama can move right while we move left to oppose him and finally primary him. We might lose in 2012, but end up with a better more progressive party for the next round in 2016.
Totally independent, there is no other way. Half the dolts (or more) in the Tea Party are probably not even aware that they are being played for fools, in any case, by the big corporate agenda and the well-heeled in their ranks.
Thank you for sanity...
I think the authors call for yet another group of people who know absolutely nothing about the issues, don't care that they don't know, are easily manipulated and herded in any direction by groups who appeals to adrenaline or testosterone for hidden motives seems a waste of this forum's time.
What would be the point of the left wing version of the tea party? The RNC is already ignoring the protectionism and other reforms tea partiers thought they rallied for. Would not the DNC do the very same thing?
Of course, they already do. DSA, DFA, the Progressive Caucus all exist to support the "democratic wing" of the Democratic Party. And still it is the call to move right that is heard and heeded.
Tea partiers are in for the biggest disappointments of their lives next year. Tax cuts for the wealthy, deficit spending, a military falling apart, and inflation will be their reward. If they wanted someone to block the "Democrats agenda" why did they not simply keep the Blue Dogs in place?
And don't forget Social Security privatization that will result in most tea partiers never retiring and their kids never getting a real job.
the tea party has a critical and essential role to play in the cunning financial capitalist system. they aren't exactly going against the capitalist grain. they are the dumb exploited class that the ruling class need.
the real left, like a socialist or communist party, would be advocating for the overthrow of the current system.
barring a bloodbath, such a party will not come about. localized alternative actions to starve the beast has a better chance in bringing down the system while building alternatives.
The problem with this strategy is that the progressive or left wing part of the democratic coalition represents no more than 15 or 20 percent of the electorate so outside of New York, New England and California progressive candidates will lose all over America. A far better strategy is start a campaign for the public financing of election campaigns which many people could support and which once implemented would permit a democracy of ideas to develop which could allow for a new progressive party to emerge.
Campaign finance reform is again depending on the Democratic party to change from within. It will never happen. The Dems have smelled too much blood, or rather money, to give it up. We need a clean break--and only a third party can threaten their electoral margins.
I agree with Thalidomide. A movement based on a single issue, campaign finance reform, has a chance of gaining enough grass-roots support to force Congress to act: as long as we made it clear it was a litmus test issue: vote against it and you're voting yourself out.
What is the progressive platform? Anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-war, pro-gay? Yeah, that'll really play in Peoria. The money-powers WANT you to go down this well-trod path.
For example, many Tea Partiers trot out the well-worn line that it isn't 'fair' to overtax the rich. Yet, even they know that money spent in an election offers a path for the rich to, quite frankly, overtax the rest of us. You'll find plenty of support for campaign finance reform among moderates, conservatives, and independents. We may disagree what the solutions to our problems are, but almost everybody knows what one of the major causes of those problems is. Thats why the Citizens United Ruling has a 90% disapproval rating among the public.
Get the money out of our elections and the nation will turn progressive in no time. Already, 60% of the public want single payer. They are just so used to being ignored, they don't really fight it anymore. After campaign finance reform, they'll get used to Congressmen listening to them once more, and will insist on it. And if the health insurers complain, no one will be listening, as no one should have been listening anyway. What kind of democracy puts the desires of a health insurance corporation over the desires of 60% of the population? Call it whatever you want, but thats no democracy.
"What is the progressive platform? Anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-war, pro-gay?"
Well it looks like you have assimilated the right wing version of it pretty well ...
Single issue party? Around campaign finance reform? And support pro war, free trade, anti-choice, deregulation, etc., etc, candidates as long as they are "for" CFR? No thanx .....
And do you honestly think that the type of CFR such folks would pass would be worth a hoot? Get real ...
You may be forgetting that - or so we have been told - the original Tea Party was formed as a protest against both Democrat and Republican platforms; it was usurped by the Rove GOP and FUXNews. This is why they "won" what they won . . . not because they had anything really original to offer. The Old-White-Guy-Establishment-GOP is still in charge of the republican party and will be until they all die of old age.
That said, if Dems really want to start anew, they need to srsly choose candidates that are multi-dimensional, not someone like Ralph Nader [who had great ideas, but only two or three of them]. Greens have to be incorporated into anything you do, as well as a "base" that's not insane. All the people who showed up for the Stewart-Colbert rally made for great fun and cool jpegs but will they show up if IT is For Real?
"We" need someone like [IMO] Al Franken or Alan Grayson, people who are not afraid to have opinions unpopular with the corporate-sponsored party status quo and who will not be cowed by FUXNews and Rove's Swiftboat Liars for "truth". Are disenfranchised Liberal Democrats actually willing to support people like this for the long haul? Or will their notorious ADD set in shortly after this thing is organized?
I wish people would stop seeing Al Franken as some kind of icon. The guy supported the Iraq war for 5 years before he changed his mind (when the rest of the world did), and he's an unapologetic supporter of Israel's war crimes--he cheered on the bombing of Gaza at a meeting in a synagogue together with Norm Coleman. Franken is no progressive.
I only mentioned Franken because he has the guts to take a stand once in a while. Sadly, I haven't seen that happen very often lately. You have to start naming names, however, get anything going. Anger is nice and everything, but unless we all just want to sit at our keyboards and vent, this has to get serious.
I think Franken is sort of Progressive (more than some others), and there is nothing wrong with his being Jewish, after all the First protects us all - right? But I will tell you what, the minute AIPAC gets involved in this, the whole thing will lose credibility. Seriously. I have personally had enough religion injected into what passes as politics in this country.
Not a big fan of bombing Gaza, no. But that's not the point here.
I certainly can't speak for "disenfranchised Liberal Democrats", Yobaba.
Still, even taking into account that "beggars can't be choosers", I believe that "you" would do better if "you" found leaders who are not knee-jerk Zionist-enabling shills and lackeys of the Israeli terror-state government.
Even Feingold limped badly on THAT Achilles' Heel.
Yes he did, as did Grayson and many other "progressives" and "liberals" in Congress. They seem liberal on domestic issues, and pull in support for that, but they are hawks in foreign policy and foreign aid to Israel. This has to become a campaign issue because that conflict and Israel's war toys are costing the American taxpayer money we could be spending on health care and job creation.
"They seem liberal on domestic issues, and pull in support for that, but they are hawks in foreign policy and foreign aid to Israel." -- Donna
Donna: This is the point I have been attempting to make with many of my friends -- they use a but, "he/she is good on social issues." One day, it dawned on me that very few of our elected officials authentically support social issues when push comes to shove, although some of them talk a good game, because they consistently vote to continue war funding, trillions of dollars; they vote for tax breaks for the rich, they vote to subsidize corporations (oil, agribusiness, energy, etc.) that spill toxins into our natural environment, they vote for more National Security funding and growing those industries, and they vote for Wall Street bailouts, again trillions of dollars, etc., which means that there is never enough/any money for the social issues that effect our daily lives as citizens of this country -- education, real health care/universal, infrastructure, jobs, etc.
It's sort of a rethinking and reframing. Am I making any sense?
And, now, we are facing a brand new set of austerity measures. But, the wars continue, the ecosystem is collapsing, people are losing their jobs and their homes, etc.
Kay--You make a lot of sense. This is the trick the Dems use--verbal support for social issues (many of which I have no idea why they are issues, except that the elite use them to divide us) but are hawks and Wall St sympathizers. "Vote for us because we're not Republicans" may have finally succumbed to the law of diminishing returns.
And I agree about the "but..." People in general seem to have a lot of trouble changing allegiances and personal opinions, and have what seems like a natural aversion to change. This is why "branding" is so popular on Madison Avenue.
Sorry, am I using too many apostrophes? I will try not to do that in the future.
Boy, sounds like Al Franken is a hot button; had no idea. I fully agree with your next comments; as I pointed out above, not a fan of AIPAC or the folks they support with cash. I just thought the guy was good at the microphone and I used him as an example of that. Please, throw some other names in here.
Rep. Anthony Wiener, NY. I don't know why he doesn't get mentioned more. Yeah, he caved on Obamacare, but a case can be made that it was better than nothing. We can't throw someone out every time there is a difference of opinion about strategy.
"they need to srsly choose candidates that are multi-dimensional, not someone like Ralph Nader [who had great ideas, but only two or three of them]"
Ok, so now we have arguments for people who are "multidimensional" and those for people who have a single issue, e.g. CFR. Seems to me a candidate who has 2 or 3 good ideas would be a good way to go, as long as we know what the overall philosophy is behind those ideas.
I'll take Nader over Franken any day .....
After being deep sixed by Dems, it will be interesting to see what Grayson does .....
Well stated, Jill. Of course, I agree. ;)