Dan Kervick's picture

    Progressive Walkout

    By Dan Kervick on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:29pm |

    Today I walked out of the Democratic Party.

    I went to my Town Clerk’s office on the way to work this morning, and changed my voter registration from “Democrat” to “undeclared”. I am 51 years old. But today, for the first time in my voting life, I am not a Democrat.

    I’m no centrist. This is a protest from the left. I have been a profoundly loyal, party-line voting Democrat my entire voting life. I voted for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (twice), Gore, Kerry and Obama; and also vote uniformly for Democratic candidates in House and Senate races. I vote in every election, and I honestly cannot remember voting for any Republicans, ever, for any position in local, state or federal government.

    During the period of my walkout, I will not participate in Democratic Party activity or party support of any kind. Nor will I respond to any fund-raising appeals. I will also encourage other Democrats to withhold their support and their money. I plan to stay outside the Democratic Party for an extended period of time. 

    I would like to encourage others to follow my example and send a clear and sharp message to the Democratic leadership in Washington, and especially the President. It is time for voters in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to declare that they will no longer be the Party’s whipping boys and sacrificial lambs. The goal of this protest is not to create a third party movement, but to help catalyze a movement to recapture the Democratic Party, and return it to the values of Franklin Roosevelt. Barack Obama and his political advisers need to be put on notice, and must be pushed more forcefully in a direction they show no inclination to move by themselves.

    I plan to be somewhat noisy about this. Sadly, only squeaky wheels get the grease in our political system. I have already written to my Democratic Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, as well as the head of the New Hampshire Democratic Party to let them know what I am doing. I will also write letters to newspapers, and post my pro-walkout encouragements on this and other blogs. The New Hampshire Primary season is approaching, and in a state of only 1.3 million people, a few activists who are willing to speak out can have a real effect.

    There are five main issues motivating my disenchantment with the current national Democratic Party leadership:

    1. Unemployment. Not only is the US unemployment rate astonishingly high, but the Obama administration and the national Democratic Party leadership have shown no particular urgency about addressing it. Obama barely mentioned the problem in his State of the Union speech. The President’s complacent behavior and attitude on the unemployment issue - especially over the past year - are utterly disgraceful, and a betrayal of long-standing Democratic Party values.

    2. Deficit Demagoguery. The issues of the federal deficit and debt are overblown, and are being exploited by conservatives whose agenda is to disable activist government permanently, and dismantle generations of progressive achievements. I thoroughly repudiate the Bowles-Simpson commission and its fellow travelers in the Republican-lite wing of the Democratic Party. Their agenda is wrong-headed, ignorant and anti-progressive, and appointing that commission was the worst error of the Obama presidency. The willingness of the Obama administration to go along with this Republican-led attack on the public sector is both profoundly disappointing and a reason to doubt that Obama shares the values of progressive Democrats. And the administration’s craven, MIA response to the Wisconsin protests was humiliating.

    3. Inequality. The gap between the very rich and everybody else in the United States has grown to intolerable and unsustainable levels, and is as dangerous as it is unjust. Pronounced economic inequality is economically wasteful, deeply unfair and socially divisive. It siphons wealth away from productive wealth creation, and into unproductive and parasitical rent-seeking and low marginal utility expenditures. And it undermines the social fabric. I want a Democratic Party that isn’t embarrassed about identifying inequality as a major social and economic problem, in clear and forthright terms, and doesn’t shy away from defending and promoting aggressive policies for building a more equal America.

    4. Activist Government. The laissez faire approach to the economy has been revealed by the events of 2008 to be a resounding failure. The stupidity and inadequacy of decades of deregulation and neoliberal market fundamentalism now stand exposed in all their naked foolishness. Financial activity is particular has been seen to inherently unstable, easily susceptible to flim-flam and corruption, and in need of strong regulation. The private sector has also shown that it is incapable of supporting the general welfare on its own, or of generating decent, well-paying and productive jobs in a predictable and timely fashion. We don’t just need more one-shot stimulus. We need a renewed progressive commitment to a vibrant and permanently engaged public sector to deliver the social and economic results that the private sector can’t handle. But the White House and the treasury Department have shown us a submissive pro-Wall Street attitude that is soft on accountability, and they display a general lack of commitment to a progressive social contract and activist government.

    5. The Social Contract. The left progressive and egalitarian tendency in political thought is not just based on a disconnected assortment of policies, but on a coherent social philosophy of mutual commitment in the political community; engaged self-government of equals; the necessity and value of work and an enduring framework of intergenerational sustainability and solidarity. Americans owe their society their best work. In return, our society owes each American a reasonable opportunity to apply their industry in a decent and well-paying job. And social insurance programs like Social Security reflect a progressive social ethos that stands in sharp contrast with the radical individualistic outlook of Republicans who wish to rely on individual savings programs and pure self-reliance. In the progressive vision, working Americans of each generation should support their younger fellow-citizens who are not yet ready to go to work and the retired fellow-citizens who have already worked their fair share.  Society sustains itself and moves forward as each generation accepts this same obligation.  We don’t just rely on ourselves, but on one another.

    If you are happy with the overall direction of the Democratic Party under Obama’s leadership, then by all means don’t do anything. But if you are fed up with a Democratic Party that doesn’t fight hard enough for jobs, equality and the progressive social contract and against Republican talking points and themes, then think about joining me in a temporary but noisy walkout. Check with your local election officials and clerks to make sure you understand the rules and laws governing elections in your locale before you act. Then take the walk. And then send message to the people who are in charge of watching the voter rolls and fundraising efforts to let them know you have done it.

    Political operatives have a limited vocabulary and mentality. But they know how to count votes and count money. The only way to get them to pay attention is to get them to see that they can’t take your vote and your money for granted.

    Comments

    Yeah, but..... other than the 5, you got any serious reasons to walk out? ;-)


    by quinn esq on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:37pm

    Help me, Quinn - doesn't he know it's illegal to secede from the Democratic Party? ;-)

    Kinda like saying you don't root for either American League or National League. Wha!?!? 


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:03pm

    Well I'm staying Dan, but I've always respected your consistency, so go for it and good luck.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:48pm

    Dan, with due respect, I offer some advice. In the 1970s, the right wing was extraordinarily unhappy with the Republican Party. The last straw was Gerald Ford's selection of Nelson Rockefeller as VP after Nixon's resignation. They experimented with third parties and sitting out elections, but neither was effective. What was effective was a grassroots movement to mount primary challenges against liberal Republicans and to support conservative candidates in historically Democratic districts that Republican establishment had essentially given up on--essentially the same tactics employed by the tea parties in 2009 and 2010. This strategy enabled conservatives to move from an impotent and frustrated wing of the GOP to the dominant force in the party.

    So if you want to empower progressives, my advice is to think long term. Find liberal donors to back primary challenges, however quixotic. Build a grassroots movement, however small it begins. Reach out to voters in conservative districts as well as liberal districts. Don't expect to sway the Democratic leadership. Plan to replace it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:08pm

    Right. and then Ted Kennedy came and did the same thing to President Carter and see how well that turned out.

    The thing that is missing from this upbeat analysis is how closely the conservative mantra alligned with business interests. Liberals don't have a simular ally. Truth, as comforting and self validating as it may be, doesn't vote. Increasingly as Dan proves neither do Leftests. 

    Frankly I think Dan K would be better served going straight to churches and presuading them to return to the Christian values of justice, equity, and charity, whose decline Dan so laments. Then maybe we can have some sanity in our polity again. After all everybody wants to "govern from the middle", even--as he wrote above--Dan.

     


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:04am

    Having read this thread, I think you're basically correct. The underlying ideology or conventional wisdom about how the economy works, etc., has to be changed.

    I'm not sure you're right about the money argument, however. In reading Invisible Hands, it is clear that it was hard to get Goldwater-style conservatism off the ground. And it is true that much of the corporate world saw itself as non-political and had to be scared into participating by a dark vision of unions taking over commerce.

    But those early pioneers DID have some deep pockets on their side. The AEI and Heritage were funded by wealthy people. And they were funded by wealthy people the public didn't know. Today, this is much harder. Soros, who was once an obscure-to-the-public trader, is now a household name. Hollywood types are, by definition, well known.

    So I'm pretty sure that a parallel progressive movement couldn't incubate in the dark for a decade or more the way movement conservatism did. For one thing, they were speaking to an elite; we'd have to speak to big numbers. And, of course, they didn't have the Internet--which is a plus for us, but also means we'll have to play heavy defense even as we try nourish tender shoots.

    Stepping back a little, though, movement conservatism was and is an ideologically pure movement. But its strength is also its weakness, as I think we're seeing now. Growing a less ideologically pure movement will make it harder to steer, but also stronger politically.

    I've spent the last year or so "talking" with old high school mates on FB about politics.Toggling between that conversation and ones like this reminds me that, even though we claim to speak for ordinary people, the ordinary people I run into have very different mindsets and a very different take on what is true and isn't true about the economy and politics in general.

    And I'm not talking even about policies, but about views on the bedrock reality that underpins policies. For example, questions like "are we broke?" Or "is the debt an immediate and pressing problem?" Or "can we afford a tax hike?" "Is it fair to ask the rich to pay even more given that they're paying the lion's share of the taxes now?"

    Most people will answer these questions the way a conservative would answer, but not because they are ideologically conservative. They just think that that is the way things are. They know these things to be true much the way they know it tends to rain in the spring. This is where the real challenges lie, IMO--displacing this conventional wisdom with a different one.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 7:56am

    Sorry to see you go, Dan, if even temporarily.  We could use more angy members who will work from within to turn our party around and get us back on track.  I long ago stopped sending money to the Democratic Party, preferring to send what little I set aside to individuals who walk and talk the way I do.

    I see what you're trying to do, and it might even work if enough people take up the call, but you can't assume that those of us who prefer to stay are perfectly happy with Obama and the Democrats in power.  It's not a case of either-or. 

    The way I see it, this is MY party.  The elected leaders are only temporary but I'm here to stay.  We have a long, proud history and my stake in this party is greater than theirs (Lord knows, I've been here longer). I'm not going to let it go without a fight.

    The Democratic Party, seemingly exemplified by its current leaders, is actually made up of millions of voters who want the same things you and I want. (Brilliantly articulated above, by the way.)  Our job as Dems is to convince other Dem voters to vote for political leaders who reflect our historical best.  Yes, we need to keep making noise--clanging, clattering, righteous noise--but I'll be doing it from the inside, where I feel I belong.

    Still, I have to admit -- it's a clever way to draw attention to some major dissatisfaction.  Go for it!


    by Ramona on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:17pm

    This.  This is what makes fora such as Dagblog great, and I'm thrilled to see both this post and the many thoughtful responses below it.  I especially like Ramona's.  With what little perspective I have gleaned from political fundraising, dropping off the grid is not as loud a statement as simply picking and choosing candidates who promise the change you'd like to see (as Ramona suggests).  The party registration thing could certainly work en masse though.  It does often seem like the administration is a bit overly concerned about those independents - why not make those independents more liberal?


    by Jamie Friedland on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:34pm

     "...why not make those independents more liberal?"

    Seems to me he just did.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:48pm

    Exactly.  


    by Jamie Friedland on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:31pm

    Would suggest DownWithTyranny as one site that tracks little-known progressive candidates and funds and supports them.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:51am

    One, perhaps small, problem here is that in some states, we don't register by party.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:33am

    Dan

    I share your feelings and therefore I am inceasing my support for the Democratic Party.


    by Flavius on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:27pm

     Dan, I beat you by over a year. I am thirteen years older than you though, so on corrected time you beat me by a country mile and then some. Because I donated to the Democratic party and to Obama's campaign and had done so before for Dean, I was on several lists and got a lot of calls for donations. I would say something to the effect that I know why you want money from me. Do you want to hear why I won't give one penny more? They all politely listened, I kept it short, and we all went on our way. I haven't received another call for a while now. The rockets are still glaring red and the bombs are still bursting and the cats are still getting fatter, but there is no longer a "D" by my name.
     I hope we can both join back up soon.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:01pm

    And what has that refusal accomplished, exactly, except to make you feel good?


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:34am

    I haven't asked to have my name stricken from the Dem's rolls, (yet), but I have stopped donating to the DNC/Obama, and when asked nowadays if I consider myself a Democrat, I reply in the negative.  And that is with a voting history very comparable to the one you describe DanK.  There comes a point, and for me that point has been well and truly passed when I can no longer consider the aims and actions of the Dems to coincide with my own, regardless of whether those aims are closer to mine then the Republican Party.


    by miguelitoh2o on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:10pm

    Say hello to Romney, Daniels, and T-Paw.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:36am

    It's a respectable position, Dan.  Genghis makes a good counter-argument above but I think we also have to consider that the two party system is as much the problem as the current leadership of the Democratic party.  A two party, winner-mostly-takes-all system like ours is bound to result in both parties coalescing around whatever agenda will win the most financing and ultimate support.  Note that I'm not saying that they coalesce around some sort of "center" or "moderate position" or "mainstream set of ideas."  They instead gather around what can be sold and that is actually pretty to the right of what people say they want but, when pushed, a majority (usually a slim majority) will buy it.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:26pm

    Now, we're getting somewhere. It is about what "can be sold." But I think it isn't just a matter of selling. It's more a matter of setting the conceptual framework, which I think is a bit different, even, from Lakoff's "framing."

    For example, right now, virtually "everyone" accepts as true that the debt is a big and reasonably urgent problem. Once you accept that "fact" as a fact, a lot flows from that. It isn't hard to win a lot of policy arguments simply because most people believe this to be true.

    Conversely, it's hard to win a lot of arguments if you cut against this grain. So the most important fight is the fight to win control of conventional wisdom--stuff "everyone knows" to be true.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:48am

    Now, we're getting somewhere. It is about what "can be sold." But I think it isn't just a matter of selling. It's more a matter of setting the conceptual framework, which I think is a bit different, even, from Lakoff's "framing."

    For example, right now, virtually "everyone" accepts as true that the debt is a big and reasonably urgent problem. Once you accept that "fact" as a fact, a lot flows from that. It isn't hard to win a lot of policy arguments simply because most people believe this to be true.

    Conversely, it's hard to win a lot of arguments if you cut against this grain. So the most important fight is the fight to win control of conventional wisdom--stuff "everyone knows" to be true.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:48am

    I’m no centrist. This is a protest from the left. I have been a profoundly loyal, party-line voting Democrat my entire voting life. I voted for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (twice), Gore, Kerry and Obama; and also vote uniformly for Democratic candidates in House and Senate races. I vote in every election, and I honestly cannot remember voting for any Republicans, ever, for any position in local, state or federal government.

    And republican voters vote exactly the same way. "I ain't voting for no Democrat !!" So they vote for whatever republican there is. Which is why we get ding-bats and loony toons in congress.

    Wouldn't it be nice if people would actually vote for the Best candidate running ?

    NAH....NEVER HAPPEN


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:45pm

    They did that in 2008, and all they got was a lousy t-shirt and a shit sandwich.

    How about let people express Democracy by doing what they want, rather than giving them little bins of carefully proscribed and pre-packaged choices of "democracy"?

     


    by Desider on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:54pm

    Shoot, at least in the West, we all had to buy our Obama campaign signs while they were raking in millions and millions for the campaign.  Never ever worked for a campaign like that in my life.

    Wow; what a portentious metaphor that was...


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 6:06pm

    It is a numbers game. Holding a majority is important. There will always be some mediocre candidates, though it is necessary to grade on the curve to get them that high these days, and if the party as a whole is worth supporting, then voting for a mediocre Democrat over the occasional better Republican can be justified. The way the Democrats wasted a majority revealed a lot and is one reason to get off that team. There is no reason to help the other team.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:56pm

    Boy, I dunno, Dan.  It's campaign season now, and Obama (and by extension the Dems) has a big bump coming!  Look here:

    He's gonna say in a speech tomorrow at the Texas border that citizens have to demand that Congress pass some immigration reform!

    And Eric Holder is saying for real this time they're gonna close Gitmo!  (The man even had the class to say it from Paris!)

    And Democrats are introducing a bill this week to end (some; the Big Five) subsidies to Big Oil....to be used toward the deficit!

    And here's a piece about why Dems are railing against cut to Medicare, not Medicaid, which would have a far more deleterious effect on the aging poor under Ryan's plan.

    Of course CEO pay rose 11% in 2010 while a lot of folks, including children went hungry, and housing prices were down for the 57th straight month, but that's on the docket to get fixed soon as Eric Holder can prosecute some bank fraud. 

    Stick around, Dan.  Dems do have us in mind.  To fund their campaigns and tell us what they can't do.  Or we should make them do.

    (Sorry to seem bitter...but I am a bit; I've worked for Dems all my life, too...)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:54pm

    Who are "the Dems"?  The elected leaders or the party membership?  If is possible to be a Democrat without accepting everything the elected leaders propose.  We do it all the time. It's also possible to elect people who understand what it means to be a Democrat, though it happens less often than we'd like.. 

    Right now, sadly, there are only a couple of handfuls, but with the current climate of suspicion on our side and lies and sabotage on the other, I'm surprised we get anyone to run.


    by Ramona on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:41pm

    Sorry, Ramona; I don't understand the question about 'who are the Dems?'.  The links show that it's clear it refers to elected Congressional Dems.  Did you mean something past that?

    The suspicion you mention, IMO, is well-earned; it's exactly what we've learned lately, and while it's sad, it's exasperating as all hell watching most Dems vote to trade away our futures.  Now you can (as many do) blame it on the existing system of campaign finance, or the fact that re-election matters too much (so one can get a corporate gig afterward the more 'influence' is gained), or that Dems haven't had a 2/3 majority to beat back filibusters (I dont subscribe to this point of view), or whatever...but in my opinion far too few Dems are willing to go to the mat for what I expect them to fight for.  And the President has sure shown his cavalier attitude toward the (disappearing) middle class and the Poor, especially. 

    And I am bitter because Obama learned the lessons of triangulation waaaay ahead of time, and is since the SOTU, in full re-election mode.  And he told us flat out who he will court by his speech and his appointments to his 'team' since then: all business all the time.  And no moves to change unemployment, but three giant free trade deals he's pushing for along with the US chamber of commerce. 

    An now doing this phony feints to try to appease the Grouchy Lefties who've been crying foul; and yeppers, I'm one of them. 

    I want my money back.  And I haven't quit the Party yet, though if a movement looks serious I may.  I don't anticipate any serious challenges for most candidates, and I've held on just in case I can possibly for a challenger.  One of my Senators, for Godssakes, is the craven Michael Bennet.  Udall is starting to sell out massively, too.  Feh!  Anyhoo, that's my thinking...


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:10pm

    we are stardust,

    Hey, I was just going to cross post to here something I'd written from another site, where I've spoken to you before, because it was germane to this conversation, and when I went back to that site, each and every comment to the three articles I'd submitted had been flagged and marked as inapropriate; including two of your comments, which I would deem to be inocuous.

    Do you have any insight to what's going on there? And please, the rest of you here, I apologize for my first contribution being so far off topic.


    by Robert Alexande... on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:58pm

    Jeez, no, Robert.  I saw those new 'flag as inappropriate' thingies.  Things have been odd since before Rayne left as moderator.  All those folks got banned for not much, as far as I could tell.  I guess I could go look at my diaries; I rarely look at them once they've timed out.  Hmmm. 

    Well I'd imagine you would be very welcome here; we seem to be a pretty diverse group...   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:44pm

    I peeked into a couple of mine, they looked okay, and saw three of yours, the third of which had a comment I'd posted with a link to some unemployment stats.  So I can't say what's up.  You could email the site administrator?  Egnor, I assume.

    And pardon us, Dan, for the interruption.  Monsieur Dumas, my posterous is http://wendyedavis.posterous.com/


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:00am

    Dan, I am not where you are--yet.  I certainly respect your decision, think you make part of the best case for it very well, and may yet join you.  In recent months I have been thinking seriously, for the first time in my adult life, about leaving the party and registering as an independent.  This shocks me.  I do recall voting for a Republican once in my life.  I voted for a liberal Republican named Carol Schwartz for mayor of DC against Marion Barry, who had disgraced himself and richly deserved to exit office.

    Likewise I am 51.  I voted for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry, and Obama--right down the line.  I've worked on numerous campaigns as a volunteer.  I have contributed generously with money, to the point of getting silly invitations to join fancy-dancy Big Trucking Wheel Democrat "clubs" in exchange for financial contributions far beyond my means.  I absolutely despise what the Republican party, which once stood for some reasonable things I usually disagreed with, has become in our day.  It is a walking, talking joke.  But, unfortunately, the joke is on us.

    The best argument by far for staying, if one's priorities are similar to Dan's and mine, is the one Genghis makes.  The best way to make inroads long-term *may* be to work doggedly to take over the party from within, like the Republican right was urged to do by people such as William F. Buckley, and did.  But I am not sure about that.  The dynamics of this strategy in the Democratic party are different from the dynamics in the GOP in one hugely important way--money favors the dissidents in the GOP but disfavors the left dissidents in the Democratic party.  But that's a subject for another post or comment. 

    I have no intention at this time of contributing financially or volunteering for Obama's re-election campaign.  I have not contributed money to the Democrats since last fall's election--I declined a phone solicitation from the DSCC while composing this comment--but I may very well contribute to individual candidates for the House and Senate who I think are committed to fighting for what I think is most important.  There is so much work to be done that I feel as though I'll be doing something worthwhile to the extent I am helping with the project of getting an enlightened Congress.  Because without that, nothing happens, either.

    I have to remember that as disgusted as I am for the most part with Obama, Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat, too.  She shows tremendous tenacity and skill--and an impressive record--advancing my concerns.  I feel it is of the utmost importance for what I care about that, if the Democrats win the House back next year, that she rather than Steny Hoyer be the next Speaker of the House.  Sherrod Brown is a Democrat.  Patti Murray is a Democrat.  Al Franken is a Democrat.  There are many Democrats in Congress I have a lot of admiration and respect for. 

    I do think that if droves of people with your and my core concerns do leave--and communicate to party officials that they are doing that along with the reasons why--the party will take note and will have to respond in some way. 

    If the self-described "centrists" who think the status quo direction is adequate really believe what it sometimes sounds like they believe--that liberals, progressives, and leftists are at this point a fringe and do not represent the views and concerns and interests of more than a small number of Americans--then a large volume departure by those folks should actually help the Democratic party secure a permanent governing majority by helping it move more securely and durably to the revered center.


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:24pm

    The dynamics of this strategy in the Democratic party are different from the dynamics in the GOP in one hugely important way--money favors the dissidents in the GOP but disfavors the left dissidents in the Democratic party.

    Not at all. The right-wing insurgents never got the big corporate money. Corporations tend to be pragmatic about their donations--they give to winners, and most of the insurgents were perceived as high-risk anti-establishment types. Corporations also tend to see mainstream fiscal conservatives as more in their interest than wild-eyed cultural warriors. Did you read What's the Matter with Kansas? The conservatives that Thomas Frank described were operating on shoestring budgets and still knocking out the corporate-funded moderate Republicans.

    The right-wing insurgency has historically raised much of its money from grassroots campaigns (Richard Viguerie pioneered the art of direct mail fundraising) and from rich ideologues like Joseph Coors, Richard Scaife, and the Koch brothers. Unlike corporations, those guys don't donate for the payback. They're true believers in the cause.

    So what progressive insurgents need are grassroots fundraising--which is easier than ever in the age of social networks--and rich believers in the cause. I'm sure they can find a few in Hollywood.

    Basically, what you have to do is raise a fund and pick a few congressional primary candidates to support. It's not rocket science. It's just that progressives for some reason tend to leave the dirty campaigning to the Democratic Party and then grouse when they don't like the nominees, whereas conservatives work very aggressively to dictate who the Republican nominees are.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:16pm

    To be more specific, here's what I would do if I wanted to started a progressive insurgency in 2012. I would create a non-profit organization that has a specific mission to fund progressive candidates. See Paul Weyrich's Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress or the more contemporary Club for Growth for an example of how the right does it. Then I would use Facebook and Twitter to market the hell out of it. Tap into discontent with Obama and the Democratic Party to gain followers and then run fundraising campaigns through the network. Pick a slate of progressive congressional candidates across the country, contribute to their campaigns, and promote them through the network.

    That's a lot of work, obviously, but that's how you make a difference. Organizations like these probably exist, so you might be able to find one and associate yourself with it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:38pm

    You definitely have further developed, more specific thinking on this than I do, as well as much more knowledge about both the historical and recent experiences with mobilization strategies by both parties. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:22pm

    I wasn't thinking of the social conservatives, but the economic conservatives who Lewis Powell was trying to rouse to action, in the early 1970s.  It took awhile.  But today's GOP goes to bat big time for the big economic interests, for the anti-regulation, anti-union, pro-privatization, pro regressive taxation, pro corporate welfare for the big corporate special interests agenda.  And they've been rewarded with lots of campaign support while Democrats who have voted against that agenda who are from gettable districts and states have been targeted for defeat. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:56pm

    The GOP has always gone to bat for big business. It has been anti-union since there were unions, anti-regulation since their were regulations, and anti-progressive taxation since there was progressive taxation. That's hardly the insurgency.

    The original insurgents were small government libertarians a la Goldwater. The later insurgents were cultural conservatives a la Weyrich. The Tea Parties are sort of a mix of the two. But neither insurgency had much backing from corporations, especially in the beginning.

    Liberals have to shake the myth that the right wing rose to power on corporate money. It's false, it's a rationalization for the unpopularity of the progressive ideals, and it's an excuse for doing nothing to regain power.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:35pm

    Things are different different places - but for FL, NV and ID my observation is that mostly progressive ideals are pretty popular (if you would lay off the homosexual marriage and gun bans, almost universally so). On bread-and-butter issues it's the centrist stuff everyone hates. The GOP gets everyone all jumbled up sideways mostly by scrambling the meaning of language - which in no small part involves making "liberal" equal to free trade agreements, corporate bonus protection, and all the crap they are doing in the Fed/Treasury ... and that's all possible due to policy actions taken by third-way Democrats. Because everyone knows Democrat = Liberal. Yet the people internally characterized as liberals/progressives within the Democratic party hate that stuff.

    If you listen to Brain Schweitzer - one state over from me - he's saying pretty much the same thing. And he's a popular Democratic governor in a state who's economy was better than 48 other states when they kicked out all the Democrats they could  - almost exclusively in response to ads against Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. The didn't even mention the name of the Democrat they were running against in most races - they ran against the national Donkey. If you didn't read analysis of the 2010 Montana election, you are missing a big piece of the puzzle.

    I'm not disputing the historical context you provide at all. But I think from Regan on you are misreading things a bit. Not observationally, but interpretationally. It isn't the unpopularity of progressive ideals that is causing the Democrats to lose their very recent grip on power. Obama's Democrats have not been remotely aggressive in promoting progressive ideals. I don't think you debate that. Kent Conrad just formally introduced a tepidly modified version of the Simpson-Bowles proposal for chrissake .... and that's the PROGRESSIVE open for the Democrats in the budget debate. Remember. "Liberal/Progressive" is synonymous with "Democrat" to *everyone* ... and that's what the democrats most prominently on TV are saying.

    There is no way progressive ideals are what America is in the process of rejecting. It's been over a half-century since ANYONE has tried advancing a truly progressive agenda. How can we assert to know how America would react to one? They certainly responded really, really well on the last documented occurrence. IMO, the lack of observable contemporary data regarding public reaction to a top-down aggressive promotion of a truly progressive policy agenda by a major party is throwing your conclusions off. Just because nobody ever got paid to try it in modern politics doesn't mean it wouldn't be popular.

    It's not my party. You guys gotta work this out. But if you want to regain power, running away from the progressives is the exact wrong move. If you want to win an internal Democratic meta-argument at the expense of power ... well, your faction certainly does have the upper hand at the moment and really does seem to be "it's a center-right nation"ing your party right into the wilderness. The Democratic powers that be are doing exactly what you propose and by all appearances have been getting their asses kicked. That isn't the fault of ideas held by the ones who's advice is consistently ignored. That's the fault of ideas advanced by those who's opinion is being carried out.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:54am

    "Ideals" may have been the wrong word b/c people may have progressive ideals but not realize that they're progressive. The point that I'm trying to make is that progressives are not popular.

    I'm not saying that they don't have potential to be popular or that they can't make their case and rebuild their constituency. But they haven't done it in many, many years. Thus, the Democratic Party ignores the left wing because the left wing is small, impotent, and irrelevant.

    Now, if you have a small, impotent, irrelevant political movement, then the logical approach is to get bigger and more powerful and more relevant. But not many people on the left seem to be very focused on such goals. Instead, there is a lot of denial that smacks of Nixon's "Silent Majority," coupled with a lot of blame thrown at everyone from Barack Obama to Rupert Murdoch to the Koch brothers to some amorphous entity called corporate America.

    So my message to the left is, in short: quit whining, quit blaming, get your shit together, and win some damn elections. Then, people will pay attention to you.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:20am

    Lots of Americans hate Wall Street, deeply resent the rich and deeply resent the fact that our politics and politicians are auctioned off to the highest bidder.  If we had a President who knew how to draw the logical conclusions from those attitudes, mobilize that resentment into a coherent program and defend the policies that put those conclusions into action, I think we could make a very good start.  Many progressive policies are an easy sell.  Washington isn't declining to sell them because they wouldn't sell.  It is declining to sell them because they are not in the interest of the people most of Washington works for.

    I'll bet I could sell a national full employment and job guarantee program that ended both welfare and unemployment as we know them.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 7:04am

    President, schmesident. What about the governors, the senators, the representatives? Who are today's progressive champions? Where is their groundswell of popular support?

    Look, I actually think that Americans could be receptive to progressive ideals when pitched effectively to them. But there's hardly anyone pitching them effectively. And griping about Obama or trying to punish him by not voting will not turn him into a progressive evangelist.

    Let's look back to Weyrich. In the 1960s, he was trying to convince Republicans to embrace cultural conservatives. They were having none of it, didn't think it was politically popular. The chair of the Wisconsin Republican Party told him, "Our businesspeople would think it was strange that we are getting involved in a religious issue."

    So Weyrich decided to make cultural conservatives a force to be reckoned with. He did it by building a political machine. He set up the Heritage Foundation to research conservative issues. He set up the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress to fund campaigns. He set up the Moral Majority and recruited Jerry Falwell to be become a conservative evangelist.

    And he was right--Americans were receptive to the messages of cultural conservatism. He was so successful that the Wisconsin Republican Party today looks nothing like it did in the 1960s.

    But just because Americans were receptive to the message didn't mean that he could just stand on a soap box and convert them en masse. He first had to built a political machine to recruit people to his side and get cultural conservatives into office--to build a movement.

    What do I know? Maybe you can fast-track it Tea Party style. In the age of Twitter, revolutions can grow quickly. But even the Tea Parties needed a political machine behind them. They needed the Club for Growth and Fox News and Sarah Palin and the Heritage Foundation all the others who jumped on board. Most of all they needed votes, lots and lots of votes. Otherwise, they'd still be shouting into the wind.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:22am

    "I'll bet I could sell a national full employment and job guarantee program that ended both welfare and unemployment as we know them."

    You could, but ONLY if you could first do away with the underlying ideological and economic objections to any such program and guarantee.

    You'd have people saying, "Sure, I want full employment and a job guarantee, who doesn't? But it can't happen for XYZ reasons. Reasons that are just fact and can't be changed."

    Put another way, Milton Friedman is just the way most people see the world today, even if they don't know Milton's name and have never read him.

    IOW, it's the not positions, programs, or policy prescriptions--it's the underlying understanding of how the economy works or should work.

    It is the verities that progressives have to capture.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 1:52pm

    But not many people on the left seem to be very focused on such goals. Instead, there is a lot of denial that smacks of Nixon's "Silent Majority,"...

    My understanding is that Nixon in the late '60s/early '70s used that phrase as code for a restoration of "law and order" that he, and, he believed, silent majorities of Americans believed was necessary after the turbulent 1960s.  There was a widespread perception--not just among those with strong feelings against the racial justice agenda and the antiwar agenda--that the violence had gotten out of hand.  Nixon played to people who were not always vocal but were often deeply put off by some of the antics and especially the widespread domestic violence. 

    Which at that time was very much associated with the protesting left--notwithstanding that white supremicists and others hostile to the racial justice agenda had most of the guns and the political and law enforcement power to initiate, instigate, or trigger racially-related violence.  The latter is a major reason many racial justice advocates hated Nixon's approach to the "law and order" issue so much, and Nixon himself for resorting to rhetoric which did not just reflect but may have amped up racial backlash.

    Painful for me to say this--but I think was Nixon was quite right politically in his judgment of the public mood in a way some Democratic and liberal public officials were tone deaf to.  Even many liberals and progressives who had some sympathy with the substantive grievances that were being acted out felt things had gone too far in terms of the violence and disorder.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s position at the time was that we needed racial justice--and the violence and disorder had to be reigned in.  He carried a lot of credibility with the latter claim as a former AG who had been dogged pursuing Hoffa and union corruption and that is one major reason he was able to attract white working class as well as heavy minority support, to a degree not often seen in Democratic politics over the last few decades. 

    One reason Nixon won two elections was because he hihglighted this issue and stance, which was cleverly/diabolically worded to appeal to two large groups of voters--those who were deeply unsympathetic to or opposed to important parts of the racial justice agenda and who wanted to believe Nixon felt the same way, and those who may or may not have been sympathetic to it but most of all were deeply troubled by all the violence and disorder in a way that was not limited to race-related violence and disorder (they were also bothered and deeply unimpressed by what happened at the 1968 Chicago Dem convention, and by some of the behavior of anti-war protestors as well which they saw as not always civil or respectful, for example).

    So I'm not sure what you meant when you invoked Nixon's "Silent Majority" language, when Nixon was largely politically right about that in understanding the implications of the public mood at the time.  He used bully pulpit rhetoric to mobilize sentiment that was sometimes dormant or not otherwise quite ripe for expression, in lieu of counting on some army of grassroots organizers to mobilize it and put pressure on him, or enable him, to respond.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:25pm

    "Liberals have to shake the myth that the right wing rose to power on corporate money. It's false, it's a rationalization for the unpopularity of the progressive ideals, and it's an excuse for doing nothing to regain power."

    This overstates the case by quite a bit, IMO; Ronald Reagan, after all, was trained as a Cold Warrior by none other than that grassroots outfit known as General Electric. 

    The big reason progressivism is so discredited is because it successfully created a thriving middle class.  Once that struggle was won, progressivism moved on to help the poorest and most marginalized, and that's where the hammer of identity politics met the anvil of the middle class sense of entitlement.  The Right rose to national prominence by convincing the white working and middle classes that Democrats were taking away benefits earned by the WW&MCs and giving them to the undeserving poor (read: urban blacks).

    As you yourself state, big money has always been on the Republican side.  I wonder why you can't acknowledge that that made the rise of the Right easier than the rise of a program primarily intended to benefit the poor and working classes has been on the left.  The people on the left who would most benefit from a renewed progressivism are those without the economic means to make their voices heard; the people who pushed the Republicans to the right were already solidly in the middle class, and many were business owners and the like who had a great deal of local influence. 

    Your attempt at equation of the two doesn't strike me as accurate or very fair.   


    by brewmn on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:51am

    I wrote "right wing" not "Republican Party." The right wing--the mirror image of Dan's marginalized progressives--did not attract substantial corporate funding until the Republican Revolution of 1994 when they became the leaders of the Republican Party.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:51am

    "It's just that progressives for some reason tend to leave the dirty campaigning to the Democratic Party and then grouse when they don't like the nominees..."

    You left out all of the melodramatic threats to leave the Party forever and wait for the Progressive Fairy to float in and take over Washington.  Otherwise, this pretty much nails it.


    by brewmn on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:11pm

    Re that sentence that brew quoted, Genghis, I would just ask you what your evidence is for making that assertion.  I know progressives who work their asses off on the mechanics of mobilization and helping candidates (some of whom write in the blogosphere and some of whom don't).  I know few people who do that who would self-describe as centrists.  I'm sure there are some.  I just don't know many.  That's just my own experience--which prompts the question about what evidence there is on this, whether my experience is more typical or not of the larger pattern. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:27pm

    I'm not talking about campaigning for causes--there are plenty of progressives who do that. There are also plenty of progressives working to elect Democratic nominees. What I've not heard about are progressive organizations dedicated to helping left wing candidates win primary battles against Democrats. It may just be my ignorance, so if you know of some, please let me know. There were a few challenges to Blue Dogs, but those did not seem to be part of national initiatives.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:46pm

    Go to DownWithTyranny.com

    Howie Klein works with Act Blue but also on board of some progressive democrat organizing org, forget name at moment.

    Found it, Darcy Burner heading: ProgressiveCongress.org


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:52pm

    Genghis makes a good point in response to this, but I would also add that the people who do the real work in getting Democrats elected in Illinois aren't the Dirty Fucking Hippy types; by and large, they are unions, urban professionals, and politically mainstream African-Americans.  They contribute, based on my experience working on campaigns, 80 to 90% of the money and muscle that actually wins elections.  Your run of the mill activists type are almost nowhere to be seen, except maybe manning the phones or stuffing envelopes in campaign offices.

    So yes, I would say that the centrists are much more responsible for Democrats winning elections than the activists.  Yet these activists continue to make outsized demands on elected officials, without the clout to insulate an official from the political ramifications of heeding those demands.  And in spite of their political weakness, if their demands are not met in every particular, they're going to take their ball and go home. 


    by brewmn on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:52pm

    I think there is a lack of perspective of some Progressives and ethnic communities. During the Obama Clinton race within the Democratic Party, it was clear that for some in both camps there was a deep racial divide. When John Lewis tilted towards Obama, the heat that came from some Progressives was palpable. Black representatives like the late Stephanie Tubbs-Jones caught heat from other Blacks because they did not agree with Tubbs-Jones' support of Clinton. The tone used by some hear at dagblog regarding Obama does have a tone that sugests some hatred. Ralph Nader expressed a similar tone during the Democratic Primaries when he criticized Obama. Anybody remember the "Democrat" who said he had a tape of Michelle Obama sing the term "Whitey"? Republicans are not the only ones with a perception prblem in the Black community.

    Some Progressives point to criticism of Obama from Tavis Smiley and Cornel West to support the validity of strongly opposing Obama. These Progressives forget that Smiley is not that respected by many in the Black community and while Cornel West is a great wordsmith, he has not put foot to ground to perform any useful task. Progressives should also note that to the majority of voting Blacks do not consider Black Agenda Report a valid political voice. The criticism of Obama on BAR would either fall on deaf ears or cause people to pick up steel baseball bats.It is true that  BAR did yeoman's work on reporting abuses in the prison system, BAR is currently cheering the fact that China may overtake the US as the leading global economy. The people at BAR seem to think human rights will be better under China than the US.

    Progressives are going to have to learn to form coalitions if they want to attain political success. When the MSM was touting the fact that Hispanics would not vote for an African-American, many Blacks were quick to point out the fallacy of that position. A lesson had been learned from the MSM reports of a non-existent Hispanic-Black race war in Los Angeles. Black political leaders worked to blunt the controversy. If Progressives decide to leave the discussion in the Democratic Party, then it is their loss. Black voters are not going to use their vote for a non-viable third party candidate who will just help elect a Republican. Ask Al Sharpton how willing Blacks voters are to drop a non-viable candidate regardless of color when it really counts. Sharpton lost the vote of Blacks in NYC big time.

    Discussions here at dagblog convince me that perceptions of Progressives and the majority of Black voters are often at odds. The words used to decribe President Obama is a case in point. Think of using those words to an audience of African-American voters that you want to convince to vote against Obama. Big. Time. Fail. Progressives may be disappointed in Obama. The experiences of the Democratic Primaries made many Blacks diappointed in Progressives.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:50am

    Could have saved yourself a lot of typing with "people who disagree with Obama are racist or the rejects of the black population"


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 7:21am

    You are lost, as usual. The language used by some here at dagblog to describe Obama would not pass muster with most Black voters. You can disagree with that statement, but I think you would be delusional.

    The points about how some Progressives who supported Hillary responded to Black supporters of Obama was also real. The venom that came out when older Black voters did not support Gay marriage in California was palpable. Black Christians were blamed for a Presidential loss when some Black-churchgoers appear to have responded to GW Bush's "Christian" outreach program by voting for Bush and against a candidate perceived as supporting Gay marriage. Note that the blame came despite 80% of Black voters in Ohio casting ballots for the Pro-Gay marriage candidate.

    You may attack me as an irritating voice standing out as a sore thumb, but let me refer you to a NYT Op-Ed by essayist and novelist Ismael Reed that criticizes the Progressive stance on Obama. The Op-Ed resulted in a brief war of words between Reed and Joan Walsh. The Reed article is found at the link.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/opinion/12reed.html?_r=1

    Even Balloon Juice notes a problem with how some Progressives present themselves. The dismissive technique used by you here is identical to the one used by Ms. Walsh that was criticized by Balloon Juice. You avoid the issue.

    Tea Partiers are frustrated. There is talk of secession. Why now? Progressives talk of supporting a host of Democrats, but are very frustrated. Progressives feel the need to leave the Democratic Party.  Why now?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:37am

    Here is Walsh's Salon column which points to Reeed's NYT Op-Ed

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/04/05/wiscons...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:44am

    Reed's reply to Walsh

    http://www.counterpunch.org/reed05032011.html>

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:48am

    Here is the Balloon Juice post noting that some Progressives have grown tired of the continuous negativism of the Professional Left and formed their own websites. FireDogLake, Daily Kos and Salon are noted as offenders.

    The post notes that Ms. Walsh uses dismissiv tactics like you in addressing the problem.

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/04/09/joan-walsh-resent-this/


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:53am

    And for kicks, a random Black voice on the web that criticizes the method of attack used by Progressives

    http://swashzone.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-you-handle-truth.html

    There is a discussion to be had, but some Progressives will not address the issue.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:58am

    Dunno why you chose that 'random piece', but here's an outtake:

    "I'm talking about the insulting and demeaning allegations that he is less than a man, some namby- pamby smart guy who doesn't know how to be tough. What colossal ignorance and arrogance to believe that any black person could achieve what President Obama has achieved and be weak. Until you have walked in our shoes, until you have been marginalized based on the color of your skin in a culture that continues to not only openly express racism but defend its right to do so under cockeyed readings of the 1st amendment, then don't talk to me about how you think that any black person should behave. "

    The 'less than a man' bit is patently easy to dismiss.  But what I'm reading here is that it's incumbent on 'progressves' (you said that's who the author is addressing)to treat the President of the United States as a black man, not as a man. 
     
    Whoa, Nellie!  Given that many Americans have never 'been marginalized for our skin color', that means in the eyes of the author, that we can't criticize him, especially  as 'weak'.  By which Sheria must mean that we can't kvetch about Obama's folding to the right on many issues, negotiating with himself before negotiations, not pushing a jobs bill or immigration reform or a budget before mid-terms, etc.
     
    Now this exactly smacks of racism to me.  And I don't care for it.
     
    And come to think of it, on another thread a few weeks ago, you were tsk-tsking progressives for liking Smiley or West, and bemoaning the fact that there were so few black media personalities.  I named another nine past your three just off the top of my head; no digging required.
     
     

     


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:19am

    The point that you miss is that while both you and Sheria may share the same goals, Progressives who are seen as attacking character (manhood) rather than issues will not get heard in many parts of the Black community. This is no different than saying if you come to a chuch or religious group with a strongly anti-religious tone, many will tune you out, even when you share the same goals.Progressives can either target their message to the group they are addressing, or they can be dismissed.

    Don't you think that Obama has a great deal of work to do in addressing Progressives? Why is the idea that Progressives have to work on addressing ethnic minorities any different?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:32am

    Progressives only see the world from their bubble.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:33am

    It's just another strawman - progressives are attacking Obama the man rather than his policies/execution? Nonsense.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:56am

    Reply at the bottom.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:23am

    That's a bit of ugliness.

    And some people don't think Obama ball-less - they think he gets exactly what he wants, and pre-bargains away stuff he doesn't care about.

    When Obama wants something, he fights for it. When he doesn't, he makes excuses and tries to pretend he tried, and tries to look good to both sides.

    Which is why the progressives are pissed.

    So come up with another analysis about how we need a "Black like Me" schooling to appreciate Great Leader, rather than be angered at a lack of mooring in progressive principles? (or even constitutional ones, as we've discussed over and over)


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:27am

    You use of "Black Like Me" points out how difficult it is for Prgogressives to actually make any progress. You can sit and pout about you core values and sit on the sidelines, or you can realize that their are people with different life experiences who see things differently than you.

    You are unable to build a coaliton. If 80% of Democrats are OK with Obama and 85% of Blacks and most Hispanics seem to be OK with Obama, where are you going to draw your support?

    Stay in the bubble. Don't adapt to reach out to any other group.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:39am

    I understand other people have different life experiences. This jerk is saying I can't understand anything abou the situation because I'm not black. Two words to that: Piss. Off.

    George W. Bush had like 90% popularity in his rush to war in Iraq. Just because the other kids are jumping off the cliff, am I supposed to? 


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:54am

    So you are capable of understanding everybody's situation?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:09am

    Could you understand that an unemployed auto-worker might look upon the auto bailout more favorably than you? GM is slated to be hiring.

    Would you understand that the worker might feel that he has more at risk than you if the GOP takes full control?

    What do you have to offer that worker besides words on a blog. If GM and Ford are tuning around, jobs may follow, and you offer.......what exactly?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:14am

    "Jobs may follow"

    "Jesus may come again"

    Obama rode roughshod over unions to show his attitude towards unions.

    $4 billion was too much for Chrysler, but how many billions for AIG?

    At GM Obama removed the guy responsible for GM in China - their most successful program.

    A bunch of financial bean-counters who scoff at the auto business, think you just snap your fingers.

    If GM didn't get so much free money, they'd be in much worse shape.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:25pm

    While dismissing these bloggers as the "professional left" and "self-appointed leaders" isn't "dismissive"?

    Note that these people developed a following by writing what people wanted to read. Firedoglake grew out of opposition to the Attorney General scandals and the coddling of Scooter Libby, providing needed lawyerly analysis of the myriad of court documents coming out.

    They were the opposition back when Rahm Emanuel was telling Democrats "don't run against the Iraq War" for the 2004 elections, in which support-the-War-Democrats got trampled.

    While there's an argument why getting a quick unemployment check is important, Reed leaves out the lasting damage of the tax cuts - including damage for services that Obama's black constituents rely on, lost services much more valuable than those missing unemployment checks.

    But whatever, the Democratic Party is a personality cult and a money machine these days. Not much to attract - free to agree or just shut up and pull the D- handle, but don't be a whiny baby and leave.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:15am

    Well I liked Reed's "Mumbo Jumbo" a long time ago. I can't tell what this article stresses - Obama didn't keep his cool when dissing the hysterical left. He only keeps his cool dealing with Republicans. 

    Perhaps progressives feel like Obama's house boys - gotta shut up and vote for the Prez as no one else even close, and when he comes home frustrated, he can take his frustration out on them.

    But in any case, i don't see this having much to do with what you wrote, which was more of a "who disagrees with Obama is racist" bent.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:55am

    Perhaps progressives feel like Obama's house boys - gotta shut up and vote for the Prez as no one else even close, and when he comes home frustrated, he can take his frustration out on them.

    ....And every other President bowed down to Progressives?

    But in any case, i don't see this having much to do with what you wrote, which was more of a "who disagrees with Obama is racist" bent.

    ....Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Black Agenda Report were all criticized.

    Read the links above to get a sense of what is perculating outside of the Progressive bubble.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:05am

    Regarding the "racial rejects" charge. Do you really believe that Tavis Smiley isn't considered a joke by many African-American voters. Do you think BAR would have a wide audience for their anti-Obama rhetoric in the African-American community?

    Republicans can claim Herman Cain and Allen West. Progressives can claim BAR and Cornel West. There will not be large numbers of African-American votes changed by any of the aforementioned people.

    A recent MSNBC discussion of race included an exchange between West and Rev Al Sharpton. west siad that he was concerned about Sharpton becoming a "mascot" for corporatists by supporting Obama. You may not get the implication, but "mascot" translates to lawn jockey, a big slur. Guess who got more support, Sharpton would was saying that Blacks had to get out and organize and  if they wanted change. or West who criticized Obama, but has no plan. Third Party options are not viable. Voting Republican is ridiculous.

    Jesse Jackson showed up at Benton Harbor. Sharpton showed up in Jena. Cornel West was typing.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:15am

    If you think I submitted a racist post, guess what I think about your "Barry" comments, among others?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:17am

    I'm pretty sure that was the name he used for years.  If you mean calling him by his first name, I'd hazard a guess that most of us called Bush 'Dubya' or other nicknames plenty of times.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:21am

    You deliberately miss the point. If you come into a group of Black voters and say "Barry" did this or that", what response would you expect?  (You're not talking to the BAR crowd and you're not talking to Progressives).


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:01am

    Who came into a group of Black voters and said "Barry" did this or that?


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:09am

    I'm in a tag team here. stardust responded to my point to you about using "Barry" could be seen as coming from the wingnut playbook and considered a somewhat dismissive term. stardust noted that Obama had used "Barry" in his early life. I then posed to stardust the question of what she thought the response would be if she entered a room of Black voters who were not "Progressive" or BAR types and began a criticism with, "Barry did this", or "Barry did that." Purely hypothetical.

    Democrats were perceived of being pro-welfare. Clinton killed that meme. Democrats have been perceived as being soft on defense. Killing/captuing pirates, killing Osama nd drone attacks have worked to shatter that meme. Republicans have an image of being racist. Progressives feel that they "understand" Black folks, but may not realize that there is ot a mutual admiration society for Progressives in some ethnic minority communities.

    It is facsinatig to watch Replucans argue that pople are trying to suppress their free speech rights by asking them to refrain from using certain words, and then to hear the same argument from Progressives.

    Because these issues are not addressed, we get results like the California Gay marriage vote. I suspect if their had been actual Progressive outreach to the Black community, especially the Black church community, results would have different.

    The Progressive position seems to be that other groups have to contort to agree with Progressives, but Progressives have no work to do to change the perceptions of others.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:13pm

    I think the issue was that gays work on Black civil rights issues, but not that many Blacks reciprocate and put energy into gay rights issues.

    And when I use "Barry" I use it in a deprecating fashion, just as I use "Dubya". But i wouldn't likely do it at a Barry Fan Club.

    Regarding Clinton & welfare, some people thought the system was broken and not really helping poor people get back to sustaining themselves - which were a lot more whites than Blacks. While a lot of howling, I haven't seen a convincing argument that it was so painful, especially in a booming economy. Had we elected Gore, that likely would have have continued


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:31pm

    I'm with rmrd. Calling Obama "Barry" is disturbingly derisive. Doing so doesn't mean that you're racist, but it does mean that you choose to use the same epithet that all the racists do. I don't see why it's worth going there just to take a cheap shot.

    PS Plenty of writers in respectable publications across the spectrum have used "Dubya," a nickname that Bush embraced. Only right-wing rags use "Barry."


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:58pm

    Oh Jesus on a pogo stick, we call Tim Geitner "Timmeh" to be derisive - does that disturb you too? The point of being derisive is.... to be derisive, no? I also use "Shrub" - is that beyond the pale? (Or over the hedge, as my horticulture friends say...). Tony Blair was "The Poodle". 

    And I started using "Barry" when we got these campaign "here's little Barry Soetoro's kindergarten teacher saying he once mentioned being president" or whatever crap.

    I recall Bush, Cheney and other right-wingers using the loving term "asshole" - does that mean I have to stop using that term or be considered half-neocon? (or "neoneocon")

    I recommend you go spend a day reading through DailyHowler archives, where Bob Somerby deconstructs the awful liberal habit of screaming racism at every long-lasting trend that's definitively not (e.g. destroying Democratic candidates/presidents with venemous swallop because,,,,,,,, they're on the other side!!!!)


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:06pm

    Timmeh does not disturb me. Nor the Poodle. Those aren't terms favored predominantly by right-wing racists.

    There is nothing inherently disturbing about any word. A word takes on meaning by how it's used. The word "nigger" is only disturbing because white racists have long used it to denigrate black people. "Barry" is not as disturbing as that word, of course, but it is somewhat disturbing for the same reason: White racists have long used it to denigrate Barack Obama--often mixed with racist innuendo.

    I'm not telling you how to think. I'm not even telling you not to call Obama "Barry." But what I'm saying is that when you do so, it makes me me think of right-wing racists because that's who I associate with the nickname.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:31pm

    On the advisability or ok-ness of using "Barry" when criticizing or deriding Obama, I am with you, rmdoo and Genghis. 

    I think it's just dumb to do that for anyone who has any sensitivity to internal political dynamics within the Democratic party and wishes to be heard by all audiences, let alone persuasive.  It does not add anything substantive to whatever criticism is being offered. 

    Apart from this context, often I think it is often counter-productive to get too personal when criticizing--it just muddies the waters and many people react to the hot button language rather than the substance of one's point.

    On other aspects of the exchange between rmdoo and desider I am more with des.  Look, if a Jew were elected President, would it be harder for me as a Jewish American for that reason to see her or him criticized harshly?  Well, very possibly.  Of course I would feel a whole lot was at stake in her or his success, for the country of course--but also for the social standing of that particular tribe of which I am a member.

    But if I was more critical of such criticism because of my Jewishness than I would be otherwise, I would not think that admirable.  Understandable--yes, with a sigh.  Human--definitely.  But unadmirable.  I think we do better as a very pluralistic, diverse society that struggles a great deal with the tensions that go with that, when we try to steer away from tribal thinking leading to double standards.  Obama himself has been at pains to stay away from that kind of thinking and does not want to be judged as a black President,  just as a President, period.  I'm talking about tough but civil criticism. 

    As I wrote above, trying to deride Obama as a Dem or from the left side of the spectrum by calling him Barry is, in the context you described Genghis, counter-productive, because deeply offensive to some and quite unnecessarily so. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:53pm

    And now we have plenty of ( young (urban especially) blacks using the word 'nigger' to refer to themselves and each other, in another attempt to turn the tables on 'boss man whitey', I'd think.  We may or may not agree, it may make us cringe on their behalf, but...there it is. 


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:55pm

    Lord love a duck; guess the NYT and this site are right-wing rags (I'll stop at two exapmles).  Christ; in our house we'd sometimes call him 'Barry O'Bama' when we were campaigning for him!  And yep, there were some right-wing diss sites in the hit lists, but this seems like we just hit Crazyville on this one.  I've never used it, and maybe Des it's right that it's dismissive or whatever he said, but to me, it's a nickname. 


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:47pm

    Sorry; I can't resist this one.  ;o) 


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:51pm

    The NYT story, about Indonesia, is called "Obama Visits a Nation That Knew Him as Barry." That hardly supports your point. Nor does the LAT story about his name. Just google, "Barry Obama." You'll get plenty of mainstream articles about his youth--and plenty right wing rants about his presidency. (And, yes, a tiny unofficial campaign blog at barryobama.wordpress.com).

    Whatever. This is a stupid argument and a distraction from a fine thread. I don't care what you call him. I've told you what I associate with the nickname and why. Obviously rmrd does to. If you or Desidero don't care what we associate with your choice of epithet, call him whatever you want.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:10pm

    I'd like to think you remember I'd said I don't call him that outside of our house, years ago.  And I'm not looking to offend you or rmrd; I just thought it was a case where you've read too many right-wing blogs, and forgotten other benign usages.  And it does seem plenty stupid to go on about it.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 3:19pm

    Ding ding ding!  There's the word; I was too lazy to grab another tab and start the Hunt for Red Desidero Speech over.  ;o) 

    Your pal in apparent right-wing talk,

    Dusty


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:35pm

    No, I use it dismissively, but not everyone does.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:04pm

    I'm with stardust and Desider. I rarely disagree with you Genghis, but this time I do. "Barry" is short for Barack, and I think is less derisive than calling W "Dubya". As stardust has pointed out, it's not even necessarily derisive (which can also be said about Dubya, of course). He's referred to himself that way, many of his friends have referred to him that way, and many of his supporters have referred to him that way. Yes, many racists have referred to him that way, as well. Have we learned nothing from the queers*? Own your own terms. Don't let others own them.

    *I'm sincerely hoping that everyone understands from the context here that I do not mean that word pejoratively in the least.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:03pm

    Wise dictum, Atheist: 'Own your own terms.'  And yes; I'm sure we all get the Get Used to It! reference.  I helped a lesbian friend campaign door-to-door in our little town, introducing her to everyone, as she was new to town.  She's the mayor now, and calls herself A Dyke; cracks me up.  She knows the funniest lesbian jokes, too.  But exactly: she owns her own terms. 

    Thanks for weighing in.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:07pm

    Everyone is free to use whatever term they wish to refer to the President or anyone else. People will form impressions based on the use of the term. People fall back on the "nigger" argument. This was used recently by Dr Laura and supported by Sarah Palin. Since "Snoop Dogg" and Chris Rock use "nigger', all "niggers shouldn't be offended.

    Richard Pryor was a master of the term. Pryor discontinued use of the word after an experience in African:

    ....from Ebony Magazine,Feb. 2007,pages ll2-122

    “In the l970″s and l980′s the late Richard Pryor tossed out “nigger” as often as his own name. According to Pryor, it was about owning the term, salving ourselves from any sting it might have had. However Pryor, whose albums included “That Nigger’s Crazy” and “Bicentennial Nigger”, said after a trip to Africa that he “didn’t see any niggers in Africa”. And he never used the word during a performance again.

    “I was sitting by myself (in the Nairobi Hilton in Kenya) and I just looked around and it was like a voice said to me,”What do you see?” And I said,”People of all colors doing things together”.And another voice said “Do you see any niggers?” And I said,”No!”. And the voice said “Do you know why?”. And I said(whispering),”No”. And it said,”There aren’t any…”.

    Ebony Magazine,page l98,Feb. 2007....

    There was no battle fought to "take" the word from the Klan or the White Citizens Council. Michael Jackson learned the power of words when, his albums were pulled from store shelves because one song contained a word that was offensive to many Jews. who really has the power the people who got recordings pulled from shelves ,or the comedians and rappers?

    I would expect if I walked up to a person I didn't know and said "you queer", I might not be greeted with open arms. If I tell Michael Eric Dyson who does use the word "nigger" that he is nothing but an n-word, who comes from a long line of n-words, and a family that will produce nothing but n-words, we may wind up with a conflict.

    The Dr Laura generalization doesn't work. The N's know who they are, as Chris Rock says, the N-s screw things up for Black people. The HBO series "Treme" had a humorous segment last year. A White musician sits a a bar filled with Black people and utters the word. Two Black men turn to the musician who says that his use of the word is OK because he has Black friends, he is immediately punched in the mouth.

    You can use whatever term you want. Just make sure that there are no Black people in the room.

     

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:20pm

    If I might, you have gotten the 'own your own term' argument quite sideways.  In your 'nigger' arguments, you seem to think that the dictum implies that it follows that a person call another person a nigger with any impunity; that's not it.  This just says that if my friend wants to call herself a dyke, she can; if a black man wants to designate himself as that, he can.  If I laugh at myself on the boards, and call myself an addlepated old broad, I can.  But it doesn't follow that you can call me that without giving offense.  See? 

    You seem determined to take this in directions no one means; to stab yourself with knives made out of thin air; it's pretty baffling.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:51pm

    You are always baffled by those outside of your bubble. I get the "own your own term" meme. My response to you and VA would be the same as it would be to the rapper, no battle was ought to win the use of the degrogatory term. You may not notice from your bubble but along with the "victory" obtained in using the word comes some very dergogatory references to Black women.

    The late Dorothy Height and Rev. Al Sharpton have been the targets of songs by rappers because Height and Sharpton criticized the use of the n-word in songs. If you are a nigger you have no problem associating with female dogs. Similar life-forms attract. If you are what you call yourself, you define women in a similar inhuman fashion.

    You celebrate "owning the term", I'll point out it's consequences. A n-word can be gunned down without a second thought. A n-word female dog can be abused. Think about the consequences the rapper and his music company would face if they emphasized the rape and abuse of blondes. If the songs turned to women of a lighter hue, the rapper would face the same fate as Michael Jackson's album.

    You are baffled because you are trapped in a bubble.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:53am

    My response to the urban kid on the street would be the same as to you, VA and my theoretical rapper.

    This actually started out as a discussion of the use of the term Barry, you are obviously free to use whatever term fits your fancy. You are now aware of how the term is viewed by some.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:09am

    You continue to torque the debate to contruct offense; you see the nation and politics through a narrow telescope of your own making.  Done with this.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:31am

    Maybe you already covered this and I missed it, but how is that word similar to "Barry" but different from "Dubya"?

    To address the use of the word you're discussing (and unfortunately, it's never been "recovered" in the way "queer" has, so I'm not comfortable using it, but respect that you are), I'll agree that Dr Laura is an asshole that just doesn't get it. I heard her spiel, and it was woefully tone deaf. Calling Obama "Barry" is about as similar to that as calling Bush "Dubya". (I was going to go with a more colorful analogy, but instead went with the most apt one.)

    Let be me clear on my position here: calling Obama "Barry" is no different than calling Bush "Dubya". There are assholes (and racists) on the right who use the term "Barry" and assholes (and racists) on the left who use the term "Dubya", there are dismissive people on the right who use the term "Barry" and dismissive people on the left who use the term "Dubya". There are people who like Obama who use the term "Barry" and people who like Bush who use the term "Dubya". Finally, Obama is fine with the term "Barry" and Bush was fine with the term "Dubya". They both owned their terms. (This is not to say, of course, that I feel the same about both Presidents.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:14am

    I didn't say your post was "racist" - I said you were calling people who didn't support Obama "racist", or if black, some kind of reject Uncle Toms.

    Hmmm... I guess that would make your post racist.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:23am

    Did you find any of the commentary by Progressives during the election racist? Did you find any problems with Raplh Nader's comments? I have a feeling we're operating from two vasly different perspectives.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:57am

    Don't know Ralph Nader's comments. (Is he still alive?)

    I'm sure from millions of progressives there had to be something racist. What exactly are you referring to?


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:10am

    Blacks and Whites did get out and organize for change.

    They just didn't get that much change.

    Will be hard to get that kind of enthusiasm again.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:19am

    brew: Do you self-describe as a centrist?  What does that mean for you?  Which of the perspectives DanK identifies do you think are unimportant or disagree with?  What are your top priorities?  I'm talking about what you, as a thinking citizen, believe the country needs most urgently to deal with soon.  Is there anything urgent that the country needs to deal with?  Forget about labels, forget about what narrow box on the left of the left those who oppose a mainstream progressive agenda try to cram it into for the purposes of discrediting it without having to do any intellectual work.  Just: what do you think is urgent for our country to deal with? 

    I agree the unions do a huge amount of work and am strongly pro-union.  But, you know, there are self-described centrists who see them as part of the old, irrelevant, retrograde class-warfare left (class warfare being presumably a thing of the past), are lukewarm at best towards unions and some even distance themselves from unions.  Some who self-identify on the left on the basis of their views on cultural and foreign policy issues do as well. 

    I gather you don't like people you think of as "Dirty Fucking Hippy" types.  Personally I've not met many who seem to fit that rough description.  If I thought that was who and what progressives are that would not particularly cause me to gravitate in the direction of adopting that label if I substantively agreed.  I hope I would hear what they had to say, though and not just run away from them and trash them because they're stylistically or visually different from me in some ways. Social change in this country has always required people who are farther out there, more openly and aggressively challenging of unjust status quos.  That often doesn't look especially pretty.  And in specific contexts it may not be the best way to win over others.  ML King was very wise to wear suit and tie, to model decorum always, and ask his followers to do likewise.

    I can tell you this: the GOP and the Right have invested a lot of energy, smartly, over decades in seeking to make the 19 or 74 or however many "Dirty Fucking Hippies" there are in this country the face of progressivism and the Democratic party.  Either they have won you over on that, to the point where you direct a fair amount of venom towards anyone you see as fitting into that box you've apparently constructed, or who you see as a Dirty Fucking Hippy sympathizer.  Or else your experiences have been pretty radically different from mine (entirely possible--I am interested to know a bit about them, as they have obviously left a major mark) in terms of what and who progressives are, and whether there are self-described progressives who actually work rather than just sit around and whine and bitch.  The GOP and the Right very much want for you as self-described "centrist" and the Democratic party's "left" to despise and mistrust one another.  Regardless of what the causes are, there is a lot of that.  

    This is why I ask you what self-identifying as a "centrist" means to you.  I have no idea what you and I agree and disagree about on issues based on the use of that label.  But if I let self-ascribed labels get in the way of finding out, then I'm just a nitwit.  And chalk another one up for the GOP and the Right.

    Also, I don't know who you mean by "activists".  I sometimes get the sense that to win a hearing from you what activists perhaps most need to do is become passivists.  As a rule, the latter probably clean up more to your liking.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:54pm

    I’ll try to unpack the questions and ideas in your thoughtful comment, so that maybe you see better where I’m coming from.  First, when I use the term “centrist,” I’m using it somewhat ironically, since it seems to be a favored term of opprobrium among the self-proclaimed progressives that haunt this and many other left-wing blogs.  By their standards, anyone not engaged in 24/7 demonization of Obama is a centrist; ergo, I must be a centrist. 

    As for where I stand politically, that would be pretty squarely in the Social Democratic camp;  I’m all for a healthy capitalist ethos driving the economic engine, as long as the fruits of those efforts are distributed so that we don’t have massive numbers of our citizens living in impoverished conditions, everyone has an opportunity to join the capitalist rat race of they so choose, and are not completely marginalized if they opt out.   I’m therefore a strong proponent of organized labor, and feel that labor’s rights and agenda should be a key plank of any government worthy of support.  Developing more environmentally sustainable means to keep that engine running is also a challenge that must be met in the very near future.

    Second, I am fine with hippies; I used to be one myself.  And the term DFH is one the progressives in the blogosphere adopted for themselves; on several blogs I frequent, they wear it as a badge of honor.  So, I more meant is as a reference to a certain subset of blogospheric commenter, than as a description of certain individuals’ choices in clothing and hygiene (or lack thereof).

    I assume you and I are basic agreement up to this point.  Where we disagree relates to the thoughts in your fourth paragraph – and helps to explain the “fair amount of venom” that some receive from me.  The “progressives” post-Obama have made no effort at all to acknowledge the limitations of the Democratic coalition, or to persuade other members of that coalition to join them in opposition to the Democrats in Washington.  Rather, it has been all holier-than-thou hectoring, Obama = Bush comparisons, and sneering references to Obamabots and, if you will, centrists.  Shortly followed by threats to abandon the party forever, and work overtime not at getting the desired results out of their Senators and Congressmen, but at weakening Obama and blowing up a fragile governing coalition.

    In short, I haven’t seen enough positive contributions from the so-called progressives to justify their claim of being "the base" of the party.  I'll respect their ostentatious threats to blow up the only coalition representing the interests of the poor and working classes in Washington when they prove they can replace that coalition with something better.  Until then, treating their fellows on the left with a little respect is called for.  But I'm not holding my breath. 


    by brewmn on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:47pm

    "I haven’t seen enough positive contributions from the so-called progressives to justify their claim of being "the base" of the party."

    Truly delusional - then who have you seen "positive contributions" from?

    Seems most activism I know is from progressives pushing caused from stopping global warming to repealing DADT to anti-racism measures to better work conditions and pro-union activities to saving abortion rights to trying to get us to end these goddamned wars to health care for all and just general get out the vote.

    I don't know that these progressives claim to be the "the base" of the party - even among progressives they're quite fractured into many pieces, and don't exactly dismiss the average member.

    Frankly I think you're selfish and you see it all through one view, and just dismiss progressives as "firebaggers" while pretending they're the only ones you use any dismissive terms. And you ignore that they usually have well-supported reasons for these terms, having put so much time and energy into trying to create progress.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:22am

    "Seems most activism I know is from progressives pushing caused from stopping global warming to repealing DADT to anti-racism measures to better work conditions and pro-union activities to saving abortion rights to trying to get us to end these goddamned wars to health care for all and just general get out the vote."

    What the hell are you babbling about?  Let's see:  

    stopping global warming  - not done;

    "repealing DADT" - I'll give you this one - this was a priority of a lot of firebagger types;

    "better work conditions and pro-union activities" - not seeing this, unless you're claiming the mantle of Samuel Gompers, which you probably do, but is still nevertheless quite a stretch;

    "saving abortion rights" - I think the evidence shows that the current crop of abortion activists have been a miserable failure - abortion rights are being rolled back just about everywhere;

    "trying to get us to end these goddamned wars" - and again, failing miserably;

    "health care for all" - well, your progressive hero Bill Clinton set this cause back fifteen years; and I'm guessing you won't credit Obama with advancing the issue, since he is decidedly not progressive.

    "I don't know that these progressives claim to be the "the base" of the party..."  Seriously?  If you're going to pretend that anything that weakens your argument doesn't exist, then we're wasting our time here.

    Of course, since you want to credit the current crop of progressives - which is what we were talking about, after all - with every positive political development, while blaming any failures in advancing those issues on others, I'm sure we're wasting our time anyway.

    But, you think you have well-supported reasons for your take on things, and for your dismissal of anyone to the left of the center that doesn't meet your criteria of a progressive.  Fine.  If you think the path to political success lies in splintering from the Democratic coalition and proclaiming your own superior insight, have at it.  You're having great success with that approach so far.


    by brewmn on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:54am

    Oh I see - haven't achieved world peace, so not effective.

    Guess Martin Luther King was a failure because he didn't achieve race equality.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:40am

    Two comments deleted. Accusations that a dagblog participant is pro-slavery violate the TOS. And telling people to fuck off, as we've stated before, also violates the TOS. If you have a problem, please bring your complaints to the moderators.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:43pm

    I didn't tell him that - I just used international sign language to flag you down. Glad you showed up when you did - my finger was getting tired. ;-)

    But yeah, some comments do deserve a response before blithely being taken off into oblivion.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:33pm

    Nice Brew, well said.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:13am

    Not at all. The right-wing insurgents never got the big corporate money.

    True.  But the right-wing economic agenda did not start getting major traction until that started to happen. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:31pm

    It is a delicate balance though isn't it Genghis. I would hate to see the country more polarized than it is currently, and yet I would like to see big investments in infrastructure and education, which of course cannot be done without talking about the most feared words in modern American politics....:Tax Increases. It seems conservatives have won the ideological war.   One that pits people against each other and we are living that hell today as a nation, we are pitted against each other, polarized, unable to discuss solutions and propose ideas to turn the tide, to grab the narrative of this nation and change it, because it isn't just a government that accomplishes this goal it has to come from us. You are right of course in what you've written, that there is much more complexity to how conservatives won the ideological war, and it would be good to learn from their accomplishments. But I would hope we wouldn't seek greater polarization to accomplish the tast at hand. I would hope we would draw more closely on a strategy that seeks to unify this nation.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:47pm

    I don't believe conservatives have won the ideological war by any means.  The Republicans just went home recently and received an earful about the wrongheaded Ryan budget.  Americans are confused, frustrated and struggling, and are trying to sort through of mixed messages and political BS.   Most have only a dim understanding of the relationship between the federal budget, state budgets, local budgets, business budgets and household budgets.   That's why we need strong progressive national leadership to give some definition to their concerns, and chart out a hopeful social vision.  Simply looking at the polls and attempting to adapt to them makes no sense. 


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:08pm

    But there IS Coors, Scaife, Koch and many others. I think the money argument is still sound. Perhaps Soros and Hollywood are good counterpoints, but I wonder. Soros, maybe. But you need rich true believers, and the right wing tends to have that--in part because the accumulation of wealth IS part of their ideology. Our ideology tends towards things like spreading the wealth, which works (somewhat, but significantly) against, or at cross purposes, to its accumulation.

    Or put it this way: People who've spent their lives and put their heart and soul into accumulating great wealth for themselves necessarily have to take an extra step or two intellectually to support an ideology that favors spreading the wealth. I know there are good arguments that spreading the wealth is also good self interest--but it's not as clean an argument as adopting an ideology which supports doing what you naturally want to do and are doing with all your might, i.e., making a lot of dough.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:07pm

    But there IS Coors, Scaife, Koch and many others. I think the money argument is still sound. Perhaps Soros and Hollywood are good counterpoints, but I wonder. Soros, maybe. But you need rich true believers, and the right wing tends to have that--in part because the accumulation of wealth IS part of their ideology. Our ideology tends towards things like spreading the wealth, which works (somewhat, but significantly) against, or at cross purposes, to its accumulation.

    Or put it this way: People who've spent their lives and put their heart and soul into accumulating great wealth for themselves necessarily have to take an extra step or two intellectually to support an ideology that favors spreading the wealth. I know there are good arguments that spreading the wealth is also good self interest--but it's not as clean an argument as adopting an ideology which supports doing what you naturally want to do and are doing with all your might, i.e., making a lot of dough.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:07pm

    What Thomas Frank wrote before the 2004 election still resonates with me to some extent.  The disconnect with the folks we want to connect with, those whom we claim to be fighting for, is plain as the larger-than-average nose on my face.  Working people, the poor and lower middle classes tend not to relate to progressive gobbledy gook.  How do we capture the imagination of working people by spending a week debating about the merits of taking out bin Laden?  Seriously, I'm as guilty of anyone, and I do think it's more than parlour sport, but I think I also understand that this kind of stuff has nothing to do with rallying folks around what we tell them their priorities are.

    And I think it's too easy to blame the disconnect on simple-mindedness, or false consciousness, or special interests, or money in politics.  I think progressives, or folks left of center--whatever that means-- need to spend a little time looking in the mirror, or listening to a tape recorder, and should try to understand what we sound like.

    I'm 51 years old too, just like Dan and AA, and except for my radical-chic, wasted, but eminently groovy vote for Barry Commoner back in 1980, I've voted Democratic all my life, and will continue to do so without reservation.  The notion that it doesn't matter if it's a Republican Administration overseeing OSHA, the NLRB, the Social Security Administration, the EPA, etc. etc. is absolutely silly and dangerous  Our memories are way too short.

    P.S. My apologies, but I honestly hadn't read Genghis' comment referring to Frank as well.  I didn't mean to be redundant.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:34pm

    DanK can speak for himself and correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read him as saying it doesn't matter which party is in power. On many issues obviously it does.  Nor did I read him as saying he is going to drop out of political engagement or not vote.  I took him as writing more about where the focus of his energies will be directed going forward, with a view towards getting the Democratic party to take a much more clearcut, assertive stance on stepping up to the issues he sees as central which he identified.


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:37pm

    Right.  I'm not dropping out or going "off the grid."   I'm totally in the grid.   I'm just looking for techniques for getting heard.  And there are only certain kinds of actions the political pros hear.

    The NH primary season is coming up, and when the operatives with their voter lists and call lists call my house, which they will, to invite me to the meetups and house parties and corn dogs with the VP, I'm going to say, "I've taken a formal vacation from the Democratic Party, and I'm encouraging others to do the same.  Pass that up the food chain to your superiors."


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:58pm

    And I do respect that Dan, as I wrote above, I really do.   Once we stop respecting principle we're sunk, particularly when it's being exercised by folks like you who are as old as I am. :)

    Here you are looking upward, to send a message up the chain.  I honestly don't know how effective that is without a base behind you first. I think the focus needs to be on the folks who aren't up the chain. And that's a struggle that is necessary, not sufficient, but necessary to undertake at the threshold I think.  And it's no simple task, even in the economic catastrophe we find ourselves in now.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:11am

    I agree it's not very effective if it is just one person.   That's why I'm hoping I can get others to take similar steps.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 7:09am

    FWIW, here is Alan Simpson in action again:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/alan-simpson-aarp-social-securi...

    Simpson, as we know, was appointed by Barack Obama to co-chair the Deficit Reduction Commission.  Not George Bush, not Ronald Reagan, not Richard Nixon.   Barack Obama appointed him, and made the most conservative Democrat he could find the commission's co-chair.  And despite a pattern of outrageous and offensive rhetoric by Simpson in that role, and open, fanatical hatred of progressive achievements, Obama has continued to embrace the work of that commission.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 7:32am

    There's not much that can freak me out, but that freaked me out. I'm sorry, but if some progressive had flipped the bird to Senior Citizens and basically called them fat cats, I think Barack woulda been on TV, all tuned up with that Daddy Big Pants voice he likes to use on the irresponsible.

     


    by quinn esq on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:39am

    Bslev: "The notion that it doesn't matter if it's a Republican Administration overseeing OSHA, the NLRB, the Social Security Administration, the EPA, etc. etc. is absolutely silly and dangerous  Our memories are way too short."

    Amen. This should be obvious.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:10pm

    Bslev: "The notion that it doesn't matter if it's a Republican Administration overseeing OSHA, the NLRB, the Social Security Administration, the EPA, etc. etc. is absolutely silly and dangerous  Our memories are way too short."

    Amen. This should be obvious.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:10pm

    Oh! The drama! Sorry for giggling Dan, but this is just so very different from the usual for you.

    What does seem to be SOP here, is thinking this thought originated with oneself. Try these folks:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party

    Thanks for the grins, and best of luck.


    by bwakfat on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:28pm

    I was going to do a blog on this subject myself but decided I really did not want to go to all that trouble. Besides Sam Smith did a very good one. http://prorev.com/libdead.htm

    The long and the short of it is this. All that great progressive legislation that FDR and JFK and LBJ passed with the Democrats in congress really did help a lot of people. And these people and their kids befitted greatly from it and had opportunities they would not have had and became quite successful. Unfortunately  for a large portion of them this success also changed their political bent and they became rich and fat and conservative. The forgot or choose not to remember where they and their parents came from.

    So what we have now is a republican party that calls itself democrat and a fascist party that calls itself republican and no real democratic part what so ever.

    And if you don't want to read all of Sam's article, here is a nice juicy part.

    Now the economy has fallen, our world status collapsed, our Constitution tattered, and our civil liberties deteriorating by the day. And in the place of a quietly incompetent alliance between conservative and liberal elites, we now find a rabid Republicanism rising unlike anything seen before – the most extremist mainstream party in our history.

    The collapse of liberalism, of course, is only one cause – less important, to be sure, than the cult of Reaganism, reckless capitalism or Citizens Unite, perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision ever. But this much we know: you cannot win in the eighth or ninth round if you give up in the first or second. At the very least, liberal disintegration opened doors sooner and wider through which the rabid right could easily enter.

    And there are scary precedents. For example, Article 48 of the constitution of the Weimar Republic stated, "In case public safety is seriously threatened or disturbed, the Reich President may take the measures necessary to reestablish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim, he may suspend the civil rights described in articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153, partially or entirely. The Reich President must inform the Reichstag immediately about all measures undertaken . . . The measures must be suspended immediately if the Reichstag so demands."

    It was this article that Hitler used to peacefully establish his dictatorship. And why was it so peaceful and easy? Because, according to historian Thomas Childers, the 'democratic" Weimar Republic had already used it 57 times prior to Hitler's ascendancy.

    There are eerie similarities between Article 48 and the Patriot Act and warrantless powers being granted law enforcement in America. Yet traditional liberals have been astonishingly passive in the face of this huge assault on the Constitution. And get incensed if you mention the word facism.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:59pm

    Thanks for the comments everyone.  Just some follow-up that I hope covers most of the bases and is responsive across the board.

    I have been thinking for months about what progressives can do to get out from under the cynical heel of the neoliberal Clinton-Bayh-Obama wing of the Democratic Party, and its corporate Third Way cronies.   It’s not enough for me to work for long-term changes in the party.  People are out of work now.  People are struggling and suffering now.   People’s dreams are vanishing now.   And for many of the people who are struggling and losing, those dreams might never come back.

    I know a guy who I have worked with for several years – he worked with another company – who always seemed to do his job very well and was respected around our industry.   He was just canned a few months ago, along with seven other people on his team, by some high octane corporate hotshot with big ideas.  The hotshot was canned himself a couple of months later after the big ideas fizzled.   But it didn’t help my friend.  He’s out on the street now, mid-fifties, begging for part-time pickup work.  What the hell does an eventual progressive takeover in 2024 or 2028 mean to him?  The Great Recession - and the Great Neglect that has followed it - has destroyed his life and career and self-respect.

    I know a few dozen other former colleagues and friends in the business world who were laid off during this recession.  Pfffft.  Flush.  Lives in the toilet.  But what the hell?  I guess that’s America, right?  Losers lose.   It’s Donald Trump’s America and Mitt Romney’s America and the Koch Brothers’ America and Lloyd Blankfein’s America and Barack Obama’s America.  Take your pick.

    I know a young man who killed himself from a combination of personal setbacks and a sensitive heart that couldn’t take the misery and savage inequality he saw all around him in our depraved and bestial society.   But sayonara kid.   We’ll get ‘em eventually, right?    Yes we can!!

    The idea that these good people are dead, struggling or down and out while a smug asshole moneybag like Jamie Dimon can get a meeting any time he wants with the President of the United States so he can beg to save his precious right to charge more swipe fees on ATM cards – well, it’s just insufferable to me.  Literally insufferable; I literally can’t take it anymore.  When I see our national and corporate and media leaders on television, I am now filled with loathing, and even something close to steaming hatred.  If I don’t begin to put my disgust into action with a concrete expression of dissatisfaction and protest, I’ll blow up.   So it’s time to get active and try to have an impact in the here and now.    I am not going to sit still while a bizarro corporate replacement Democratic Party rules the country, and while overcompensated outsourcing kingpins like Jeffrey Immelt, who built their successful careers on putting American workers out of work, are put in charge of the party’s “jobs” program.

    Of course, eventually things will get better in America, since they always do.  Folks will then say, “There now, that wasn’t so bad, was it?”  The opportunity for progressive change will be gone.  A half-decade of extended and unnecessary suffering will be swept under the carpet.  The rich will start getting richer again.  The corporate lock on American politics and culture will be more absolute.  Washington will pay less attention than ever before to progressive ideals.

    In thinking about the challenge, I realize that our rulers have people like me under their thumbs because of our own political dispositions.  Here, for example, are some of the political options that are not viable for me:

    1. Third party movements:   There is no model for a successful third party overhaul of the political system since the days of the Whigs.  We’re stuck with two parties, and if progressives want to prevail, they need to take over one of those parties.   The Democrats are clearly the only viable alternative, since they already have a vibrant progressive wing and even on organized progressive presence in government in the Progressive Congressional Caucus.

    2.  Refusing to vote and checking out:   It’s no good.   I always vote.   Maybe it’s ‘cuz I’m such a great fucking citizen.    Not voting for some viable candidate in an election – even if the lesser of two evils – is unthinkable for me.  So I can’t even bluff that I won’t vote, or pretend that I’ll vote for some marginal third party also-ran.   Nobody will believe me.

    3. Replacing Barack Obama at the head of the ticket:   Won’t happen and won’t work.   Any effort to do that would just blow up the party completely, and leave progressives hopelessly fractured, bitter and divided.

    So the only realistic option is to find some way of putting real pressure on Obama to wake up, get real, do better and get more progressive.    And how can we do that?  They know they’ve got us, right?  They know we’ll vote in the end.  They know we don’t own billion dollar companies, and are responsible and realistic citizens.  So what is left? 

    The only way is to find creative of making Barack Obama and his posse of lackluster, deadbeat advisers uncomfortable and embarrassed and irritable and insecure and frustrated and angry and less popular because of the centrist stance they are taking.

    Progressives can become much more of a nuisance and stop playing the role of idle talkers and gadflies who just grouse among themselves.  They actually have to do something that gets attention: they can become a bunch of smelly and irritating skunks at the primary season garden party.  When Obama comes to do his pre-nomination primary victory lap and coronation dance in our states, we need to emit some foul-smelling secretion expressing our rank dissatisfaction and disgust.  Leaving the party in protest, even as a temporary move, and then publicizing it, is one way of dealing a blow to the Obama-Daley machine and making them look bad.   I'm sure there are others.  Be creative, and aim at making the boss look bad.   Obama is a prissy perfectionist and cool cucumber who hates to look bad.  So maybe that kind of disrespect and humiliation will force him to respond.

    We can employ public shaming: Shame on you Barak Obama for abandoning the unemployed so that you can suck up to Wall Street, the US Chamber of Commerce, the centrists and tea partiers.  Shame on you for telling the really progressive economists in the party to take a hike.   Shame on you for sticking us with Jeffrey Immelt, Tim Geithner and William Daley.  They don’t speak for us.  We don’t know them or recognize them as anything close to what “Democrat” means to us.   I want Barack Obama to start feeling embarrassed and ashamed.  I want him hot under the collar and muttering under his breath over those goddamned leftist agitators and malcontents.  That’s me - I'm one of them.

    And we can employ fear of the political unknown.   Dissatisfaction can’t be controlled and managed easily.  Any sudden downtick in the money flow or the voter rolls will send a shiver up the spines of the operatives.

    My idea of a “walkout” is that it is something that makes sense in the left-labor context.  When you’re in a subordinate position and need change, and don’t get satisfaction from the bosses, you eventually take bolder steps like withholding your labor until you get some attention and change.   Democrats don’t have to give up on the Democratic Party.  But we can take a very public hike.  Maybe if it happens enough, a few important partry operatives will tell the President, "We've got a big problem on our hands."

    The New Hampshire Primary season is coming up, and people pay attention to it.  When the campaign bandwagon rolls through my state up here, I want to make sure that progressive voices are heard.  I would be happy to hear from others on realistic ways of attracting attention for a progressive agenda, and techniques for jerking the centrists by the lapels and dragging them over to our side.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:34pm

    It's too bloody awful about the suicide, Dan, and the amount of friends of yours with now ruined lives.  So many don't realize how many are suffering so badly.  Best to you and your family.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:03am

    I too feel for your loss Dan 

    The Democratic response they'll give you "I feel your pain"; but in reality they'll be thinking

    Yeah you'll come back slave, now build bricks without straw.

    What you going to do,,,,rebel?

    As the chains tighten.

    Keep buying imported slave goods....idiots, cut your own throats....dummies

    Wonder why you have no money to sway elections? 

    Money talks and BS walks, and you the American consumer give your money to foreign workers IDIOTS,

    Wonder why you can't afford healthcare? Why you can't afford to send your kids to college, why you can barely survive?  Who can pay you're wages, when you deprived your fellow Americans of jobs and wages.

    Did you think that foreign worker, was going to buy from you?

    Dummies;....... put on the yoke you purchased.

    REAP WHAT YOU SOWED. 

    Now they want Amnesty for cheaper workers; just in case the American worker gets uppity and decides to boycott, Just in case they decide to rebel.

    Support your Democrat free trader, slavery is good for business.  Slaves are a dime a dozen.  

    Government response: What????  you think we owe you something?


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:36am

    You might want to check out The New Progressive Alliance. If you haven't already.

    http://newprogs.org/blog


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:38pm

    Good for you Dan!

    The only thing that will ever get the attention of the people who really run and operate the Democratic Party is when you hurt them in the pocketbook and at the ballot box.  Most Democrats freak out when any discussion of doing what you've done comes up.  They go absolutely crazy with fear of helping the Republicans by witholding support from Democrats who are such pussies they end up mostly...  helping Republicans!  There are those who will say it will do no good.  There are those who say it will only help the enemy.  I say they are wrong.  The more loyal and true Democrats make it known they will no longer follow the party line, the sooner it will be that the party line changes to something more to our liking.


    by oleeb on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:25am

    Interesting that I walked out of the Republican Party nearly 3 years ago, erasing the R from behind my name to replace it w/ a D. I am not thrilled w/ my new party. So I am finding myself in the position of following your lead, or continuing to work to push the Dems further left from the inside. I am not a fan of throwing votes away. And as appealing as it is to vote on principle even though you know your candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance, the net result is that the worst of 2 evils wins, instead of the least. And right now, the least is better than the worst. The Repubs are mounting a full-scale attack on public employees, people who need help the most, and women. Although the Dems are not doing as much as they could on many fronts, they are all that stands between us and the demolition of collective bargaining, the death of Medicare and Medicaid, and the inability of a woman to get an abortion. These are no small things. And for those reasons alone, I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket for the foreseeable future. I am not willing to live in a country w/o them, just because the Dems haven't made as much progress as I would have liked. I will continue to work for the programs I believe in, but I will NOT do anything that will let the Repubs destroy the progress that HAS been made.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 3:01am

    I wrote this before reading your follow-up statement, including the 3 things that won't work, and I'm glad to hear that. I was afraid you were making a plea for voting 3rd party. I completely understand your frustration, as I am feeling it, too. We have family members who are just being eaten alive by the economic woes we are facing, and help just isn't coming fast enough.

    I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do about it. I have said repeatedly that I think the biggest problem is that there are not enough liberals, and I just don't know how we "make" more of them. If people can sit by and watch this country go down the tubes to the protect the rich, how are we going to make them care about their fellow citizens who are hurting? I am surrounded by conservatives. Everytime I try to strike up a conversation about pulling together to get through this mess, suggesting that those who have benefitted the most from the greatest of this country need to help those who have not fared so well, mostly through no fault of their own, I am shut down as being a simpering socialist...it's taken me awhile to accept that I AM a proponent of a uniquely American Socialist/Capitalist hybrid that encourages Capitalism tempered by the need for a social safety net for all. But I can't get any traction at all. I have not made any inroads at all, but I don't see how making more noise will, either.

    So many seem to poo poo the idea that the middle decides these elections, but it seems to me like they do. The middle got pissed off in 2010 and we ended up with states with repub majorities, and the people are being raped, pillaged and plundered. Now there seems to be some buyers remorse, but if the dems are seen as going as far left as the right has gone right, they are going to take over and if you think people are hurting now, what will it be like when they take over complete control and we lose soooooooooo much? How long will it take to get Medicare again if they take it away? How long will it take to get collective bargaining back? How long will it take for women to be able to decide for themselves whether or not to complete a pregnancy?

    I am with you in wanting the liberal voices to be heard, and for the country to head in a significantly "lefter" direction. I want this country to have a social conscience, and I want it to value it's workers. I feel like a weenie even saying it, but, I am afraid that in pushing too hard, and in getting too ugly and stinky, we will alienate what little support we have, and we may lose what we have, instead of making the progress we want.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 3:39am

    I want this country to have a social conscience, and I want it to value its workers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooM-RGUTe2E

    Pray for this one instead “Let your kingdom (government) come, let your will be done”

    Our current government is too deeply entrenched with corruption. It’ll take an act of God to overthrow it.  

    Maybe we’ll have a Red Sea of debt, moment

    Maybe that'll awaken our pharoah class, when we abandon them and take the treasure  


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:21pm

    @  rmrd0000 5/10/2011 - 10:32

    Hmmm.  Can’t say if I should even try to answer this, but here goes, and it may be my last comment on this.

    I have zero opinion if Sheria and I share any or many of the same goals, so we may find it hard to find common ground.  She may just be uncomfortable about criticisms of Obama, though she duly notes she differs with him on continuing the wars.  One criticism, period.  So it may be that criticism per se bothers her, and she projects her (and maybe yours: ‘Manhood’) values onto the discussion.  I don’t know if that’s typical from the black community or not.  I’d guess that the black community isn’t monolithic to any great degree, but I do read op-eds from blacks who wish Obama were fighting for them and their families, and frequently mention ‘more spine’. 

    As an aside, it cracked me up that Sheria pretty much said at the end of her rant: And now back to our regularly scheduled program, in which I am nice.  Pretty funny.

    I’m not trying to build a constituency, but if I were, and I do support groups that are trying to come together as a political force (there plenty trying to unite as we type), I’d think that agenda items and understanding that class war considerations would be on the list, as well as more jobs, more social safety net, sustainable energy, income and wealth disparity, etc., and that all concerned might have to quit being so sensitive to perceived criticisms about Obama.  In fact, I’d want them to get engaged in end runs round him to the degree it’s possible.  As Des points out, he gets what he wants, and courts who he wants.  And then shows us like the little feint to Progressives and Hispanics he’s making at the Texas border this morning.

    No, I don’t think that Obama ‘has a great deal to do in addressing Progressives’;  I don’t need any more of his words that come to nothing, either in foreign policy or on domestic issues.  I needed him to fight for decent financial regulations, not block them; to make a mortgage program that worked; to quit kicking cans down the road; to  not embrace Republican and major banking and corporate neoliberal tools and make them part of his economic team; not to embrace the theme of ‘austerity’ so early and so cravenly.  The man’s smart; he knows how basic economics work, and his team’s is only working for Wall Street.

    So maybe the Sherias of the nation need to figure out which policies they’d like advanced, and hook up with other folks who want the same ones, and make some coalitions to fight for them.  And not worry about folks saying ‘The Emperor has no clothes’ or ‘the President has no balls’, just because he’s black.  And start treating him like A Man, not a Black Man.

    And if you and she think you’re under-represented by black leaders, find them, rally around them.  For my money, West is pretty good.  Every social movement for the disenfranchised (that includes me, if not you) has had intellectual and social gospel leaders involved and acting as moral beacons.  With West, you’ve got both.  And IMO, he does work his ass off as a community and national and college youth activist.  Google it; you may see it’s so.

     

     


    by we are stardust on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:26am

    Actually, I don't have a problem with the Black leaders who are in place. From a purely practical standpoint, I think there is more to be gained from a Prof Gates than a Prof West. Gates will point out historical challenges that were overcome by Blacks during really hard times. Gates will also force you to confront African participation in the slave trade. West offers wishes and crticisms, but no true program. I come away from a Cornel West exchange with the sense that I knew that fact, he just phrased in an elegant fashion. From Gates, I actually learn new facts.

    West  took it upon himself to caution Sharpton about becoming a "mascot" for corporations. Sharpton had to remind West that while the reverand had actually mde public appearances and organized marches, West was typing. Sharpton got college kids off of their feet.

    I refer to sports teams as the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins without problem. I can only remotely imagine how a Native American might feel about the use of those names. Similarly, I feel touched by pictures of Nazi Concentration camps and the Holocaust, but I can never say, that I feel the same way as a Jewish personl. I realize that I am really capable of empathizing up to a point. I recognize my limitations.

    When Trump went crazy over the birth certificate issue, I don't know how many non African-American US citizens felt true humiliation over the fact that the President of the United States had to show his papers. Some may have gained some insight from a video that went viral, but I am not sure that that initial gut punch sensation was felt by people who had not "walked in our shoes". I find it easy to accept that good-hearted people may not be able to detect such moments.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 3:07pm

    I included the sports teams because on one level, it's a minor thing given the economy, the wars, etc. but in the drip, drip, drip process of living life in the US as a native America it might become a major thing. (Would I  stand for the Cleveland Blacks or San Francisco Negroes.?)


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 3:18pm

    Talk about American ideas of entitlement.  Boo Hoo Hoo.  I want my childish naive dream of the Democrats back, or I am going take my toys and go home.

    Well I am pissed as hell too, but I will go right out there and vote for Obama's reelection. Why, because the other side is insane and their governance unfathomable. Our neoliberal world sucks and our embrace of it is leading to our rapid descent into second world status.  But Obama is the least worst option. If Idealism motivates you than take up Ghengis's advice and get out there and change it. If you ask me I would recommend figuring out how to disarm the fox network unfathomable and the Roberts court.

    There is a reason why Fox/GOP has targeted 'get out the vote" operations like Acorn or Unions. And your temper tantrum plays right into their hands.   If you think that punishing Americans to get them to understand how valuable Liberalism is well than what exactly is the difference between your positions and the GOP's on debt? 


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:25am

    Based on your knowledge of the history of social change in our country, don't you think past efforts featured a wide range of actions and choices by different individuals which each contributed towards positive results? 

    That is my read of history--call it methodological or tactical pluralism, if you will.  There is no single correct or efficacious choice or action but, rather, many different choices and decisions and actions by many different individuals contribute to positive outcomes.  One could even arrange individual choices on a linear scale, with "conventional" at one end, and "militant" at the other, and no implication that either pole, or any single point in between, is the "one best way".

    I think different individuals make different honorable choices (the one arguably dishonorable one being to drop out and do nothing, which Dan is real clear he is not doing).  So I'm clear, I do think some choices and actions can be counter-productive or mistaken.  But if I wanted to try to persuade someone that I thought their choice was mistaken or counterproductive I would think I should try not to insult them.

    I do understand your frustration.  At other times in my life I have had similar feelings towards individuals doing what Dan is doing.  I've tried to talk some individuals out of making such choices, into changing their minds and not leaving the party. 

    The way I have come to feel is that, if we don't start to make some major headway dealing with carbon emissions immediately, we are doing a horrible injustice to future generations (I have 2 teenage children?  Do you have children?  I agonize over whether I am doing right by them or, rather, am not doing enough, am acting too conventionally under circumstances that require greater imagination and commitment than I am giving to these matters) and the planet.  It won't matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in power if we continue to cook the planet and are unwilling or unable to go all-out to preempt that from happening.  I don't see any sense of urgency in the White House on this issue.  You may say, what can it do now with a Republican House?  It could talk about this issue with the public and lay the groundwork for making it a priority campaign issue in the Congressional as well as presidential elections next year.  It could issue and aggressively (or more aggressively) highlight specific recommended actions individuals and organizations can take right now to help, absent Congressional action.  It could ask citizens to talk to their current elected officials about this issue, to ask them what they believe about it and why, and if they disagree with the scientific consensus, why do they disagree? 

    If we don't build on the progress on financial reform and finish the job, but instead just wait around until the next meltdown, how do we justify that to ourselves without feeling utterly foolish and shortsighted?  Is there any indication that this White House sees a job that desperately needs finishing, when the President characterized last year's financial reform bill as getting 90% of what he wanted?  Or is it a delusion to believe that, unless much more noise is made, attention will in fact be paid?

    If we don't work much harder at dealing with the jobs problem, but instead tell ourselves that the destroyed lives Dan wrote of are just part of the cost of doing business in a capitalist system, how do we sleep at nights?  Will we sleep better because we have an unresponsive Democrat in the White House than a Republican who is fast-forwarding the process of our self-destruction?  Is consent to a more protracted national suicide a viable option?  Is it viable simply because it is the best our current unimaginative, un-urgent, sleepwalking politics appears capable of producing any time soon?  Or do we as citizens with extraordinary freedom to be creative quite simply have to force it to be responsive, and not accept anything less?  Are some different approaches, reflecting a sense that in multiple ways, business as usual really is, as the President at one time said himself, entirely inadequate?  Or at least worth considering?

    I think of we are stardust, who, unlike me, has already announced she will not be voting for Obama.  She has given her reasons or at least tried to explain as best she can why she feels this way.  If I understand them correctly, they reflect a view quite similar to what I have written above---that a vote for Obama, given the evidence of his inclinations and priorities, the things he appears to be committed to doing and not doing, amounts to consent to an utter failure to step up to our biggest problems with measures adequate to what is needed.  Which amounts to a consent to die a slow death rather than a quicker one.  I admire the bracing, informed views which have led her to these apparent conclusions.  Emotionally, she needs to fight.  I feel that way as well.  You and she and I may draw different specific conclusions about what that means for us.  But I honor and respect her, and her choices, even if I end up disagreeing with some of them now and down the road.

    I don't see that mindset as reflective of a spoiled child, an undiluted and unworthy cynicism, at all.  I interpret it as a matter of emotional survival for her, based on what she has said.  She cannot bear to engage in a course of action which, deep down, and with plenty of good reasons to believe as she does, she believes amounts to giving up.  To giving up on our country, and our planet, by consenting to its demise, using the excuse that politics as usual just won't permit matters to be otherwise, no matter what we citizens do.  It seems to me a matter of honor for her.  You can dismiss that, and lecture her about the art of the possible.  But  I choose not to.  I respect and honor her feelings. 

    Who is to say that what she ends up choosing to do, or what DanK does, will not contribute more to the effort to bring about the kinds of changes we desperately need than more conventional choices you or I might make?  I find myself feeling that for me to feel some sense of certitude or moral or emotional superiority for my current inclinations over theirs would be arrogant. If there is some single right course of action, I do not know what that is.  

    But beyond that, for me to adopt such a stance would not be very hard-headed, based on my reading of how change processes work and have always worked in our country.  Such processes are always messy, filled with intense conflicts and disagreements among various change agents, with uncertain outcomes.  About all I feel I really know is that change is made by those with the courage to act in the face of uncertainty, with a good heart and a curiosity and desire and openness to learning along the way.


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:39am

    Voting for the Republicans-or abstaining - is to cause them to win. Whether that's because you disapprove of Obama's fiscal commission or because you think  the Club for Growth has the answers to all of our problems..

    Your motivation doesn't matter. The effect matters. 

    Because Stardust and Dan don't think Obama' s health plan  isn't  progessive enough they are going to act in a way that guarantees that Medicare will be cut.

    Because they don't think that Obama won't raise taxes sufficiently on the rich they are going to act in a way that guarantees that they'll be cut.

    Because they think that Obama will overspend on the military they are going to act in a way that guarantees that more will be spent.

    It may cause them to feel good. I hope so because that's the only good that will result .


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:08am

    You'll keep drinking the kool -aid  because you think it makes you feel better. 

    Many have seen futility of following your lost shepherd.

    A shepherd, leading us to the slaughter.

    FOOL WAKE UP!  IT"S A TRAP  

    Many have learned to identify wolves in sheeps clothing, Evidently you havent  

    Has the koolaid made you comfortably numb?

    Slowly walking to the slaughter or running; the outcome is still the same, your going to get Fleeced and slaughtered.

    Quit drinking the kool aid, it's making you numb.

    WAKE UP FLAVIUS, YOUR HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

    (Hope he wakes up before he finds out it's too late)


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:13am

    Dan has always voted and said he will be voting again next time.  And not for a 3rd party according to what he said.  So I don't think what you write applies to him at all.

    We are stardust has said she will not vote for Obama.  I don't happen to think that is likely to be helpful when the time comes for each of us to act.  I also know she has heard your argument, from you and a number of others, over and over again.  And it doesn't work with her.  She's told you and others that, many times.  If you want to change her mind, if you are interested, that is, I think you will need to find a way to her heart based on what she's told you and me and others here who read her.  If you're interested. 

    Also, indirection may have a better chance of producing results with her than a direct appeal--or scolding--telling her to vote Obama and chastising her when she tells you why she's not going to do that.  Just a thought.  Of course I could be wrong about that. 

    I gather you think of yourself as a pragmatist.  You will vote for Obama  notwithstanding disagreements, reservations, etc.  So be pragmatic with stardust.  Go for results--not your own feel-good scolding.  She's told you it doesn't work with her.  Why repeat yourself?  It just tells her you don't understand her and haven't really been listening to her, that you just have a predetermined line you're trying to sell her.

    I have nothing I am trying to sell her.  She's going to do what she's going to do.  She knows how I feel and what I believe--I have no idea if that matters to her in any way, no reason to believe it does.  I see nothing to be gained by scolding or hectoring or lecturing her.   


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:27am

    Yeah; scolding Stardust won't work, LOL!  Thanks for the vote of confidence above, Dreamer.  When I wrote this 'I'm not in' piece, it was originally going to be a comment on Destor's thread, so it was off the top of my head.  But I just read it again, and I stand by it even more now.

    One part of my thinking that you didn't mention was that given the many simiarities of the present duopoly, I've been prodded to take the long view.  Rather than rehash any of the issues that I covered at least minimally in that diary, I'll say that as of today I see the long view as even more crucial.  What's been left undone for the health and well-being of most of us, and will continue to impact the futures of our children and grandchildren is massive at this point, on almost any front we care to look.  And I'm frightened for those generations, here, and around the globe.

    If the Arab Spring taught us nothing, it's that there is almost always a tipping point at which hunger, despair, wealth disparity and powerlessness lead to revolution.  I think we are heading there quickly, and as Chris Floyd said so well after Reagan's re-election, all the same institutions and outward trappings of our Republic will still be in place, but existing only as a pretty empty shell.  We need to change that with people power, IMO. 

    What we saw in the last month in Wisconsin was that Republican over-reach fueled a populist movement, and brought discussion and debate about people's issues and rights out into the light of day.  Some nasty things will still happen for a time there, in Ohio, in Michigan, as they would if a Republican President were to be elected in 2012 (so unlikely as to almost be dismissable, but a lot can happen before the election).  But as kgb so aptly poins out in his diary today, we are the government!  We hire these politicians, and we can unhire them, or cause them to do better; they are after all, politicians who want to keep their jobs.

    Both parties ignore climate change (cap and trade was a sick joke, IMO, anyway) and that I think is one of the most telling points about both parties being so entwined with corporate power that there is no daylight between them in most cases.  And soon those climate changes will bring crises beyond most people's imagination over potable water and food.The corruption has already been occurring in this country and around the planet for corporations and nations to control both, not to mention big agriculture's hand in making sure it owns seeds, water, and gen-modified crop laws. 

    Fracking and uranium and gold mining, and the push for oil shale development is poisoning the water in many areas of the nation while the Federal government ignores it; any minimal help comes from state agencies.  This country will soon be unable to provide the world with grain, as the aquifers in the 'breadbasket' have been depleted and poisoned.  All the wind breaks have been cut down, so erosion here and around the planet is increasing again at an alarming rate; the satellite images that show it are head-in-the-oven depressing.  Dams are being built that will kill off people downstream in too many countries, an the population is still growing too fast.

    So domestically things will get rough as food becomes more scarce, jobs scarcer, and people will be restive.  The global crises will increase, and from the looks of it, we will go to war rather than offer energency summits NOW to plan for cooperative solutions.

    Ack; this is getting too long.  But I find that for the future I see written already, I can't support Obama; he is far too conventional and allied with Wall Street bankers and their economic desires than he is with the problems we other everyday Americans face now, and the even larger crises will face very soon.  I'm going to go with: some misery in the short run will push people to reclaim our Republic.  It's ours, goddamit, to keep.

    (sorry; no editing before 'Send')  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:15am

    I don't think that's a fair reading of Dan--partially, maybe, but not fully. Dan is trying to push Obama to do better. He isn't proposing that we leave Obama in the lurch--except financially, maybe.

    You can argue that what he's proposing will be ineffective or counterproductive--or that there's a better, more effective way.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:44pm

    Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  There is much I don't take issue with.  You have a valid point about the variety of techniques employed by various social movements.  I would go further than you and claim that even temper tantrums sometimes work. But don't expect me to laud them. 

    Frankly I don't really give a damn about Stardust's feelings here, or really Dan's.  I am certain they are nice people, but they both seem to invest way too much in political figures, they seem to be looking at politicians for redemption.  That is not healthy.  Politics is a sick game of the possible. 

     "Who is to say that what she ends up choosing to do, or what DanK does, will not contribute more to the effort to bring about the kinds of changes we desperately need" 

    Yes, pigs do sometimes fly. I don't really see how liberals abandoning the only game in town is going to help. Instead it just plays into the hands of the gop.  Now maybe our two party democracy is a sham for both "parties of property". Sure I agee with that.  So what? Its still the only game in town. There are Syrians who are being tortured and killed right now for a chance to have a system that is even as flawed as ours.  That is worth fighting for, crying about the dems not being leftest enough? entitlement.

    I will note that Obama got us healthcare, as flawed a bill as it might be. We are also out of Iraq. Those are two huge accomplishments.  Gitmo and the banking industry might morally outweigh them, but polticis is messy. It aint a place for redemption. 


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:50pm

    Hey, Sal; I don't care if you care for my feelings, either, and my position isn't about how I feel as much as what I can imagine would be most helpful in saving our Republic in the long term.  You can read what I wrote above your comment, and see that I probably didn't mention feelings once.  Now I did mention morality once or twice in my OP...

    signed,

    Pig flying Stardust


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:05pm

    I respect that you're looking at a longer term picture and think that short term losses can result in long term gains. My problem is that short term losses can also lead to even more longer term losses. Unlike others here, I don't find your position indefensible. Rather, I find it to be a gamble* I'm not willing to take. I look down that road, and see the path you describe, but I also see many other paths, and many of them are very scary indeed.

    *Just to be clear, everything's a gamble. I just feel more comfortable with my gamble (favoring incrementalism) versus yours. No insult implied.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:04pm

    So much for the Atheist and the Christian to agree on... We have made progress. I would rather build on it, albeit too slowly, than to lose it ALL and have to start over at some undetermined time in the future.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:14pm

    To be frank with you I am not particularly invested in our republic.  You see WI as a win, and I see what happened to unions in Indiana, Ohio, Maine, etc. as a major loss. At least vis a vis the electoral college. 

    You do a good job of catologing some of the problems facing the world, and then state that your integrity requires you to run away. This is the logic that says we are obviously not sustainable therefore to fix the problem I am going to kill myself.

    Forgive me if I have zero respect for that view, as possibly correct as it may be.


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:30pm

    'Running away' is the last thing I'll do, as if not voting for Obama is running away (what asshatterry); this is my country.  Your respect is not required, Sal.  My commitment is, for me and my code.  And I've been involved in it for more years than you've been alive.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:54pm

    Just to clarify-I did not say that I do not respect you, I am quite certain you are an honorable person who has been a force for good. 

    I just don't respect hari kari. If you don't feel that is what you are doing, than carry on. I just hope that you live in a solidly blue state. 


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 4:07pm

    I don't see how stardust's position amounts to hari kari.  She sees it as collective hari kari to continue to elect politicians who won't deal with problems that are not ones which can be kicked down the road further without inviting catastrophe.     

    The argument that we should want things to get much worse, with the hope or belief that only then is there a chance they can get better, is one I strongly disagree with. 

    But the argument that telling your party you are leaving, and saying why to party officials, is one potentially effective way, if enough people do it, to apply pressure for the policies one believes are necessary, is not at all obviously wrong to me. 

    Sometimes elected officials do actually take notice and respond to internal dynamics within the party created by people whose votes and support they have long counted on who are leaving, where they know the reasons why and believe they can accommodate the concerns, at least in part.  

    An analogy might be the following.  You've been going to a favored restaurant for years.  You're a well-known regular.  But you feel the service has become shoddy.  And management has not fixed the air conditioning/heating system.  You've tried a variety of ways of getting your concerns addressed.  None has worked so far.  So you ask to speak with the manager and let her know that you will no longer be frequenting her establishment, explaining why.

    The manager can remind you that you like the food, the ambiance, and the location.  You remind the manager that you are well aware of this, but that you expect decent service and a functioning climate control system. 

    The manager has various options available to her in response.  One is to shrug it off and remind herself that losing one customer isn't going to put the restaurant out of business. Besides, in your small town, the only other restaurant is a raunchy, cockroach-infested dive with bad, expensive food and rude customers.  She knows you can't stand the place and won't go there with your business.

    If several customers start to leave with similar expressed concerns, the manager might start to think differently about the situation, consider and explore some options more thoroughly than she initially did, and perhaps make some changes.  Or she might not.  Or she might consider and reject making such changes.  If she does not make changes, It might not significantly affect the health of her business.  Or it might.


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:15pm

    We're running in circles here. I confess I find the choice of a consumer business anlagy to be less than uplifting.

    Best of luck,


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:41pm

    You know how much I love ya AD, but I'm not buying the analogy. If a restaurant closes, you go to another restaurant you don't like, or you stay home and eat. You don't lose your Medicare, Medicaid, collective bargaining, the right to determine your own reproductive fate, the right to serve in the military if you happen to be gay, and a bunch of other stuff I could come up with, if the other restaurant is the only game in town. If the repubs take over the Senate and WH, God help us all. There is so much at stake. If it turns out to be a winning strategy (we lose the senate and the WH and all of a sudden the country takes a hard left in response the next election) I will be the first to congratulate all of who pursued this strategy. But I REALLY don't think it will happen, and I further think things will be MUCH worse, for a very long time. Doesn't seem worth it to me, but that's just one woman's opinion.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:57pm

    That's a fair criticism of the analogy.  You're right that I haven't made the stakes high enough.  But that criticism only refers to one possible outcome--a closed restaurant--which is very much open to question, and assumes the course of "advocacy" will be ineffective, which is also open to question.

    Please bear in mind that I myself disagree strongly with the "things need to get worse, and then they'll get better, so we should hope they get worse for awhile" view, or the "if things get bad enough that is the only possibility for them to get better--so it's worth the risk" variant of that. 

    I think the line of thinking DanK articulated towards the end of the thread, on the other hand, is not obviously wrong.  I've not heard Dan embrace the "we should want things to get worse because that has to happen for them to get better" argument, either.  He is struggling for leverage, believing the party could be more responsive to the concerns he articulates without losing elections. 

    I have written that I find it very difficult to imagine circumstances where I would not vote for Obama.  I'm not planning on giving his campaign money--he isn't going to need it from me.  Such volunteer time as I can carve out for myself I will look to invest on the Congressional/Senate and perhaps state legislative campaign end of things.  Obama wouldn't want someone like me going door to door for him--I'd be a terribly unpersuasive representative given how I feel about him.  And that would show through, inevitably.  I'm not a great actor.  But I don't think the above inclinations would in any way represent a checking out approach--to the contrary. At least that's how I see it.

    But I do see plausibility in some of the views and actions expressed in the thread that are not now my own.  And generally I don't think there is much to gain by trying to browbeat people who feel as Dan and stardust, among others, feel--even if one feels certain her or his own intended course of action is the right one.  That would seem only likely to generate more rancor and shut down communication lines, towards no positive end I can think of. 

    What separates people with different views on this matter in some cases is not mainly differences in what kind of society and world they want to work towards building, but rather different views and theories about the way political processes work, or are most likely to work.


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:58pm

    =) Your last paragraph nails it, which is one of the things that makes me the craziest about the Dem party...we all want pretty much the same things, we just can't can't agree on how to get there. It is going to be an interesting couple of years.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:06pm

    I don't think we all need to agree on how to "get there"--or, perhaps more accurately, on how to proceed, since we don't all want the same things.  Which is a good thing. Because we won't.  :<) 

    In fact, we will drive ourselves crazy if we try to make that so, or invest a great deal of energy believing that can be so and needs to be so.  I think there are different effective roles that different individuals can play, some more on the "outside", others more on the "inside", some more conventional, others bolder/riskier.  I just don't have the necessary degree of clairvoyance or sense of certitude to be able to treat someone who plausibly disagrees with me on how to proceed as though their actions are sure to be counterproductive or worse, when in fact their choices and actions might turn out to be more effective than mine towards similar desired ends.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:28pm

    Really hate to intrude; I'm getting weary of being spoken about and having what I've written mischaracterized, and the temptation to leave this alone is great.  But I do want to say that I don't believe I've ever indicated that 'things have to get worse before they get better.'  I have said I won't vote for Obama because I can't vote for him.  And that if he were to lose the election (not because of my measly vote loss), then one consequence could be that things would get worse under a Republican President, but that it could be a beneficial thing in the end if it causes massive amounts of people to become activist advocates for government for the people, not the elites.

    I have no idea how many people will try to use their votes or party registration to send a message; a lot can and will happen between now and then, like the double-dip recession/depression many smart economists believe is heading toward us.  If I believed things would have to get worse, then I'd vote for an R, wouldn't I? 

    I'm going to bed.

     


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:52pm

    Really hate to intrude; I'm getting weary of being spoken about and having what I've written mischaracterized,

    Well, I've been writing about your views of late.  I haven't deliberately sought to mischaracterize your views--to the contrary, my intent has been to give them a fully respectful hearing.  If I did mischaracterize your views in some way, I apologize. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:01am

    You really have, Dreamer; I said so above.  It was just so very odd to be discussd in the third person for much of the day, and as I said above, I'd get back to the computer and see what some folks said I thought, and not recognize myself.  Suicide?  Ayn Rand?  Whoa, Nellie!   ;o)

    It was just that this one concept about 'must get worse before gets better' thing seemed to indicate I was rooting for it.  I have been doing my fair share of agitating for actions against the banks and whatnot, for flashmob skewerings of influential figures, etc., and have even supported others' concepts for general strikes, but it seems too early for that.  Not quite enough of us are suffering quite enough yet.  But if there us a tipping point that brings flash demonstrations, I'd rather they be peopled by the non-violent ines rather than the gun-toting ones, and they're the ones here making the most noise.  Brrr.

    I really appreciated the honor and accord you paid my initial 'Are You In?' thoughts.  My own take is that so many people hammered on you about them, it started changing the context of it all.  And I didn't want to sound like an idiot over the better-worse idea, though this IS coming from a woman who fianlly noticed she'd been wearing her shirt backwards for half a day, so take that with a measure of irony.   Tongue out

    And you did nicely showing Dan's position for maximing his leverage by changing his party affiliation, too. 

    Anyway, once I decided I can't ethically vote for Obama, it did free up my mind to resist being held captive to the next election cycle and fear.  Thanks, Dreamer.

     

     


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:29am

    It was just that this one concept about 'must get worse before gets better' thing seemed to indicate I was rooting for it. 

    Thanks for clarifying on that.  Another denizen, one who has not written in this thread, sometimes sounds to me as though s/he feels that way.  All the possible misanthrope language aside I've got you sized up as extremely life-affirming.

    I really appreciated the honor and accord you paid my initial 'Are You In?' thoughts.  My own take is that so many people hammered on you about them, it started changing the context of it all. 

    Maybe I missed it but I didn't feel hammered on.  I thought some folks sounded as they misunderstood or were innacurately characterizing my views, and tried to clarify that right away, even though it meant repeating things I'd written earlier in other threads or posts.  I didn't think any of it was even remotely personal at me.  It was all civil, with people who just disagreed with what they thought I was saying, or perhaps with what I am saying.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:08am

    'Misanthrope language aside', LOL!  You may have noticed that I think it's healthy to be able to kinda make fun of ourselves...if it weren't for humor, I wouldda been down for the count long ago.  ;o)

    Thought I'd might make you laugh with my shirt quip; ah...next time, Dreamer!  Thanks again.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:44am

    Sleep well (and I mean that sincerely.) Some of us believe that a vote for anyone other than a dem in the general election (or no vote, for that matter) IS a vote for an R, even though the lever isn't actually pulled for them. It's one those things we can't seem to reach consensus on. I sincerely believe in your right to vote for whoever you want to vote for, but the whole point in all these political boards is to try to get everyone else to see the merit in our viewpoint, and/or to learn, or we wouldn't be here discussing all this. Dan is urging his point of view, you, yours, and some of us are urging an alternate one. It's all good, as long as it is done reasonably respectfully.


    by stillidealistic on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:09am

    Not quite, stilli; I've been quite clear I'm not urging anyone; we were asked 'are we in?' and I'm explaining why I'm not.  'Respectful and reasonable' seem to be moving targets for some.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 8:44am

    "My commitment is, for me and my code."

    Ayn Rand (or, for that matter, George W. Bush) couldn't have said it any better. 


    by brewmn on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:06pm

    I would have thought you had a citizenship code, Brew; I'm surprised here to be likened to those folks.  But it's always a pleasure to see myself through your eyes.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:01pm

    You don't get it, Stardust. Code is code for.... code. We don't do code. We break the code.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:12pm

    Hush, Des; don't speak of Codex Mendoza...


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:01pm

    Well, that may be a crap way to say it, but trying to adhere to your core beliefs about which ways to turn for the political decisions that might be best for the most people.  Sorry I can't be clearer, but for me, it's a process that's akin to navigating life without religious dictates and only a fuzzy belief in a higher power; it takes lots of intentionality and imagination and a sense of which choices are closer to Right than Not Right.  And I don't need to convince anyone here of anything; my original post on the 'Are You In?' question was just to be honest, and give a little background as to my thinking.  That's all; (and Dreamer has come closest, save for the few additions I made).  ;o)  

    Someone wants me to be sure that if Obama loses, I will take accountability.  WTH?  Each person votes the way he or she wants; I don't make them vote any which way, and I doubt I'd try if I could.  But we have become so captive to the Fear Factor Toxicity sold to us by MSM, politicians, negative campaign ads, etc.  And I'm choosing not to play in that field.  How many of you are still using Sarah Palin as the big, bad next Presidential possibility?  Well, I think she's gone, and she's still the One of your nightmares.  Feh! 

    Yup, I'm gambling, and the future's worth a gamble to me at this point given that the place I live, and my family and friends are in the middle of tough times, and no one out there in the DC bubble gives a tinker's damn. 

    Someone says, "Oh, poor us; the Syrians would die for our ...whatever."  Well, the folks in the Arab Spring nations knew we in the States are living under many of the same economic conditions they were, and sent us messages on their placards, like the folks in Tahrir Square did.

    So carry on with your beliefs and your voting choices, but let me have mine.  I have four grandkids with their lives aheasd of them to consider, and at this point their futures look rough and worth some long-term strategizing to me.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:31pm

    "...trying to adhere to your core beliefs about which ways to turn for the political decisions that might be best for the most people..."

    See, this is the problem I have with you.  I don't doubt that your heart's in the right place.  Honestly, I think you taking in and raising two children who might have been abandoned otherwise is nothing short of heroic.

    But I also think that too many here are adhering to their core beliefs to the detriment of what's best for the most people.  I have been told many times by the "progressives" on the blogs that we can't afford to wait for the Democrats and Obama to get their shit together; people are hurting right now, dammit! 

    Well, first of all, disaffected progressives helped throw the 200 election George W. Bush, forcing Obama to spend almost all of his time dealing with the effects of policies that no Democrat would have implemented (notably, Iraq, failure in Afghanistan, the financial crisis, and return to structural budget deficits).

    Second, if eight years of Bush could set us that far back, what do you think is going to happen for all of those people you claim need our immediate attention when I preach moderation, compromise and patience with the Democrats if you help open the political field back up to Republican control? 


    by brewmn on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:49am

    Brew, question for you: do you think the House would have flipped in November had Obama fought hard for a jobs bill and been tougher on the big banks and those among their top officials who were culpable?

    Because I sure as hell don't.  House Democrats--ironically because of decisions made by the Obama Administration and the disfunctionality of the Senate and its refusal to change its rules--got waxed mainly because of a bad economy and an electorate that didn't see Washington, run by Democrats, doing enough about it.   

    "Damn the purists" is an easy argument.  But it's the wrong one in this context.  Again, for many of us this isn't about adhering to some fixed "principles", in the sense of rigid, specific, my way or the highway policy fixes for particular problems, no compromises permissible. 

    Rather, our grievances are based on what we think were some badly wrong decisions on economic policy in particular which in fact would have played well, or at least been very competitive, at the polls.  Disagree with that?  Why were there successful Republican candidates playing the populist anti-banker card during the campaign?  It should have been--but it was not--crystal clear which of the two parties was going to put the big banks and wrongdoers associated with them in their place.

    Now you can go all ideological on me and play the same old, brain dead "he was too far left" or "he can't do those things because they're too far left" tune.  When it comes to issues like jobs and reigning in the big bankers most of the public does not see these as "left" versus "right" issues or think about them ideologically.  Majorities are in favor of: more jobs when unemployment is very high, and reigning in the irresponsible banks so we don't wind up in the same mess again soon, as well as holding wrongdoers accountable instead of letting them skate.  

    You can characterize those as "left" views if you feel you need to to make your argument.  I think these are just plain responsive, common sense positions which are favored by majorities of the public.  They were not pursued nearly aggressively enough in the first two years, in part because of a Democratic administration that was far more interested in not hurting the feelings of the big banks or earning the opprobrium of the Chamber of Commerce crowd than it was about going all-out, and very visibly so, to deal with the jobs mess, and insisting that our country's elected government fix, and hold accountable, the unelected big banks that got us into this mess. 

    So I think in the above sense you are setting up a straw man to knock down, at least when it comes to characterizing the views of those of us pushing for majority-favored economic policies, that we are just a bunch of politically naive purists. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:23am

    These are excellent points. It's my understanding that some of his advisors tried to push Obama to work on jobs instead of health care.  If he and Dems had been ahead on this issue, then the loss in 2010 would not have happened, nor been as bad.

    That said, WHAT was he going to do about jobs--other than the stimulus? We could argue that a bigger stimulus might have done the trick, but I'm less inclined to think that these days, given the amount of debt everyone's laboring under.

    What's left is a WPA-style program, which runs smack up against people's fears of the debt, etc. I don't know whether Obama could have passed that, even if he were so inclined, but maybe if he tried it RIGHT out of the gate.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 1:06pm

    Pelosi's House passed a $200 billion jobs program; the Senate around $15 billion.  The WH let Pelosi and the House twist in the wind, declining to enter the fray.  The Economic Policy Institute put together a very worthy jobs saving and creation plan, after the initial stimulus bill. It factored in limitations on how much money could be spent how quickly to create how many jobs.  Most of it was ignored by the White House.

    Put together or accept a viable, ambitious plan--whether the House bill that passed or the EPI proposal or something like it.  Talk it up with the public. So they know you are going to the wall on the jobs issue.  Make sure the Senate as well as the House vote on it.  If the Senate will not vote on it, take notes on who is blocking the vote and talk about that in public if you have to, urging voters in that state to let democracy prevail by demanding that their Senator(s) allow an up or down vote.  

    If the Republicans block it from coming to vote or vote it down, remind the voters come election time (last fall).  Urge them, if you are the White House, to ask the candidates their stance on the jobs proposal--will they vote for or against it if they win their election races?  Let the voters decide.  One thing they will know is that this President is going all-out to deal with the severe jobs problems in our country. They will not be left wondering which party is on that side of this issue.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 1:48pm

    Just put up some ideas of Auerback and Gilbraith.  Mebbe?


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 2:01pm

    First, since I got to see Dreamer's response just after reading yours, let me say that I agree with him, and add in that whole summer for people to object to mandates to purchase for-profit health insurance, which should have been a debatable issue, even though most of the Corporate-driven protests were about bogus claims.

    I don't subscribe to the point of view that disaffected progressives helped elect Bush so much as Gore's not simply asking for  more recounts in counties in Florida helped (plus the dear and delightful Katherine Harris), and we got Carter cuz of the egomaniacal Teddy Kennedy, yada yada.. 'Nother day for all that, or not.  ;o)

    As far as 'that no Democrat would have implemented (notably, Iraq, failure in Afghanistan, the financial crisis, and return to structural budget deficits)', Dems did vote for those wars, the funding, the supplementals, Obama 'surged' in Afghanistan, still has 100,000 military and contract troops in Iraq, may (not decided yet, but MAY) approve a new AUMF to expand into other nations we're already drone-killing in, crap financial regulation bills, a failed HAMP that helped lead to one in three mortgages being now underwater, expectations of two million more foreclosures next year, no remotely equitable solutions for the MERS mortgages, even from the State AGs, who propose settling it instead of prosecuting banks and servicers, etc.

    I see it as Elite Insiders v. the rest of us; you see it all as Dem-Republican.  If there are good ones in Congress, yeppers, they're Dems, but not enough of them to provide relief.  Things are getting worse with the putative Good Guys in power.  Dems are fund-raising over fighting Ryan cuts to Medicare, when Medicaid cuts will impact far more on seniors' health care and nursing home needs.  Politics.  And re-election.  And revolving doors.  For both sides.

    For now, people are trying to come up with their own small solutions around the country, community banks, small start-up companies and jobs, co-ops, negotiating mortgage mods with free legal help; states want single-payer health plans and are asking for waivers (we'll see how that goes)...

    Anyway, sorry to harsh your mellow on preaching moderation, compromise and patience with Dems, brew.  All I'm saying is I'm out of patience.  Lucky for you no one listens to me.  ;o)

     


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:57am

    As for the 'heroics' of adoption, brew; please let me say something about that.  (I walked back in from the Pet Cem3tery where I wuz workin' once I realized I'd forgetten to answer this part...)  ;o)

    There sure may be cases where folks adopt kids that way, but for us, we were just glad that The Flow or the gods or whatever brought them to us.  Well, one was dropped by the house by a social worker for emergency care (no one to take her from the hospital; came in a diaper and a towel...), but still, we wanted kids, couldn't have any, so we're grateful to the kids.  Most days.  ;o)  And whoever said you never quit parenting was right; my daughter must call four times a day from the Springs; I'm pretty much her main friend.

    When our son called on Mother's Day, he said all the right mooshy stuff about his mum; I did laugh and tell him that most of the time he was enjoyable to parent.  (He still apologizes fro some of the bad stuff.)  Ha!

    But I swear, if we'd been independently wealthy, I wouldda adopted a whole baseball team's woth of 'em.  Had to turn down a couple more because the second one needed lotsa care and lotsa treatment and $.  So it goes, I guess. But seriously not heroic.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 1:07pm

    We have 47,000 troops in Iraq, year of Obama 3. Down from 100,000 to be sure.

    Plus how many contractors to support those troops? Another 100,000?


    by Desider on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:08pm

    Touche. But I would note that that's 13,000 less than we have in Germany.  I would bet that McCain would have doubled down. 

    It's a messy world 


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:22pm

    How many contractors do we have in Germany by comparison? I really don't know, but I strongly suspect that it's far less than we have in Iraq (by orders of magnitude).

    (I agree that we're better off than we would've been under McCain, though.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:29pm

    Look, I really don't understand what the alternatives are.  All I'm trying to do is make some little bit of noise in the only way I know how to make it.  Politicians craft their agendas and platforms to the constituencies they are trying to keep happy.  It seems to me that the lesson of the Obama approach to governance is that if you are a loyal Democrat he just puts you in his pocket and says, "Well here's a guy I don't have to try to please."   But if you are an unaffiliated or independent voter, or someone in the Chamber of Commerce, or a Wall Street titan, he says, "Damn!  What can I do to appeal to more of these people!"

    Why am I any less entitled to use whatever leverage I have, pathetical minimal though it is, to get someone to pay attention to <i>my</i> preferences.  I don't count for any more than anybody else.  But I count.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:20pm

    That's fair. I totally get your frustration and share it. You are entitled to have civic dreams :), I just don't know how effective they will be. What do you say to Ghengis' suggestion above? (and you may have a reply while i am writing this). 

    To be honest can only think of few alternatives and none of them are something you or I could alone.  

    Rivive the GOP's moral base; a return to Christian values on the right is probably the only hope we have to returning the country on track. You can't have balance when one side is nihilist.  Then the middle won't seem so extreme.

    Take over the news-cycle. The media frames the terms of the debate. The problem here is that the left is always screaming that the sky is falling, people get tired of it. But somehow we must overcome fox news and the bs washington pundents. I don't know how to do this, but a rise of celebrated leftwing intellectuals would help. Paul Krugman can't do it all alone.

    Expand the voter base to include more left leaning voters, and build comunities that care. This sounds cliche, becuase it is... but it has been known to work.


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:10pm

    Excellent point about ACORN and unions.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:38pm

    Way too make posts to keep track of here, need to kick back with some wine and cheese to digest it all.

    Anyway Dan K, I have a lot of the same misgivings about Democrats too. However, I can't see the logic in removing oneself off to the sidelines...that's self censoring. You need to be an active voice within to be heard. Shouting from the outside doesn't carry the weight of direct, in-your-face debate of issues.

    I prefer the subtle approach. Sit back, listen and ponder. Take time to see the problem. Look at the symptoms the problem generates. Figure out if a symptom could become a problem in and of itself or die off as an orphan if left on its own. Once you have your problem isolated, look for answers. Determine the ones that are self satisfying, then figure out how to pose the answer in a manner than makes it wanting more than what it offers. Once you have your problem define where all the wiggle room has been eliminated, then start asking questions you know can't be answered but in the direction you want to go.

    I'm in no hurry because I'm always suspicious of the quick and ready answer with solution to fit all. Better to take the time and figure all the possible tangent vectors that might happen if there are a few loose ends not tied down.

    And that's the real issue with Democrats isn't it ? ... too much wiggle room on the issues ???

    Perhaps what the Party really needs is an open forum where issues, like those you have, are aired, discussed, dissected, discussed, examined, discussed, formulated, discussed, and finalized for a discussion with elected representatives. It's a long and drawn out process that brings together many from various locales with political aptitudes/attitudes that need to mesh the gears to create a coherent concept without any misgivings what the public thinks, feels and expects.

    Unfortunately, this idea must come from the Party and I doubt they would be interested in the public steering policy.


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:27am

    I'm not on the sidelines, Beetlejuice.  I am trying to make noise and I'm protesting.  I changed my registration, and then blasted it out all over the internet along with my reasons.  There are already a whole bunch of comments on this thread.  I also sent an email message to my Senator and the state's Democratic Party chair, and basically said, "Pay attention!  I'm a lifelong Democrat but i"m really pissed!"  I'm not sure what else I can do.  They don't listen to cheerful and satisfied loyalists.

    During the upcoming NH Primary season I plan to do other things to try to get my issues on the table.  I'm trying to boil my ask down to three main points that are thematically linked and can be stated simply and repetitively - and then I'll lok for methods and venues of getting them out there.  NH is a purple state, and even though Obama will win the nomination in a walk, the primary season lays a foundation for the general election.  The politicians do a lot of retail politicicking and pay attention to the squeaky wheels.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 5:34pm

    Dan, seriously dude, two words: Fusion voting. Quit screwing around, you got the permanently affronted lefties panties in a bunch. Oy!

    http://www.wfwin.org/pages/local-wfw/new-hampshire.php

    Do yourself a favor.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:59pm

    I thought you were recommending fusion cooking for a sec - a much better use of time.

    Get your gumbo.


    by Desider on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:16am

    Hey, it's working here in Connecticut.

    If you have a better alternative other than bitching, moaning, or throwing a temper tantrum, (been there, done that), I'd like to hear it. Fusion voting is along the lines of the anti-doughnut party proposed by Samuel Clemmons some years ago. Just sayin.'

    Gumbo? Um no. I'd rather stick with the red beans and rice. Good for what ails ya.

    =D


    by bwakfat on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 9:30pm

    Yesterday I unsubscribed from the Obama for America email list.  When you do that, to their credit they ask you your reason.  This is what I wrote: 

    Barring significant shifts on policy which I do not anticipate, I will not be volunteering or contributing money to the re-election campaign.  I have extensive insider experience in politics as a former Congressional committee staffer and working on campaigns.  But, although I almost surely will vote for the President a 2nd time next year, considering the alternative, there have been just too many decisions, on economic policy matters in particular, that I find unacceptable and leave me unwilling to actively campaign for him.  He wouldn't want me doing that--I'm not a gifted actor and my now limited enthusiasm and belief in him, terribly disappointing to me, would either be false or too difficult to hide when I engage with others.

    I think now that I should have identified perhaps a few grievances from among the following which are important to me:
    *acceptance of the austerity for the middle-class frame standing alongside tax cut extensions for the wealthiest Americans and no taxes paid by 2/3 of "American" corporations
    *jobs policies
    *financial reform, where we have even more eventually catastrophic big bank hyper-concentration than before the legislation last year was passed
    *not a strong enough commitment on dealing with climate change

    And no, flavius or others who may assume otherwise, this was not a feel good/feel better moment for me at all.  It is on account of no single action or decision that has been made, but numerous ones.

    I do not anticipate a reply that is meaningful to me.  Nor do I anticipate that anyone high enough up the food chain will respond to my note, although a first-class campaign organization that is aware enough to ask people why they want off an email list should also want to have a process that permits those higher up to see at least a sampling of what people are saying.  Members of Congress are shown, obviously, not all of their incoming mail, but a sample, just to get some idea what some people who care enough to write are saying.

    In publishing this, it is not my intention to encourage others to do likewise. I think we each have to make our own decisions.  As I've written, I have respect for many people here who think differently about this and other matters than I do, and who have different commitments and points of view than I do.  In no way does this represent a "checking out" of involvement for me, just a redirected focus somewhat different than I might have anticipated.

    Going forward I am going to try to refrain from repeating grievances I have with this White House and instead try to focus on identifying viable positive options, as I have been meaning to do in regard to the Congressional situation.  And Genghis and cmauk have each offered specific constructive thinking in this thread which I believe merit further consideration or investigation.   


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 4:52pm

    I wrote a similar email not quite a year ago.  Thanks for letting us know.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 7:15pm

    I've just through this entire thread and here's what I think.

    Progressives are far too "smart" and involved with the "inside baseball" of politics to speak to, and persuade, the average person. So they are hamstrung when it comes it building a political force (backed by money or otherwise).

    If you look at how the right communicates to voters, they commandeer big symbols--"liberty," "love of country," "opportunity," "God"--that are wired into Americans' common, uncritical views of who we are as a nation and a people. Notice they don't have to twist themselves into a pretzel to be persuasive.

    Conservatives don't need to have good arguments and certainly no convoluted ones; they let the symbols do all the work for them. We're left sputtering that the people don't know what they want or what's really good for them or how our putative leaders are betraying our ideals.

    As regards the discussion above about Obama's blackness, it's simple. Blacks feel strongly about supporting the first black president. Period. Of course, they do; any minority group, especially one that had been oppressed, would.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 2:13pm

    I think the word "jobs" in this economy--and a well-chosen picture or personal story or two--are all the symbols needed to win that argument offered by a Presidential communicator of even average ability.

    When you add in the substantial public awareness that already exists that our infrastructure--say, and show, what that means, don't use the word alone--is in such poor condition that it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, to grow the economy, I think it would take some work to lose that agument in these circumstances.  

    There is, however, one sure way to lose it: don't make it.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 2:25pm

    You might be right about jobs. But we still have to counter the intuitively sensible ideas that 1) the federal budget is like a household budget and we can't afford to spend more than we take in (even on a jobs bill) and 2) the intuitively correct idea that the private sector is the source of sustainable jobs, not the government.

    After all, the average person doesn't feel like he's supporting FEDEX with his hard-earned dollars. It appears to operate, sustainably, on its own with people paying for it only when they personally need it. But he DOES feel like he's supporting the USPS when it runs a shortfall, even if he doesn't use its services.

    He DOES feel like he's personally supporting federal infrastructure jobs by taking money out of his pocket and paying it in taxes, which then go to pay contruction workers.

    This arrangement doesn't appear sustainable to him because it appears to require constant hand-outs in the form of spending of tax dollars.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 4:20pm

    So you explain to the public that this is a temporary measure to help the overall economy recover, and lay the essential groundwork to grow the economy more effectively and produce more good jobs going forward, as well as help those individuals and families who, through no fault of their own, have lost their livelihoods as a result of this economy and are in many cases in desperate straits.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 4:26pm

    That SOUNDS easy, AD. But when one side is winning the ideological war, simple and straightforward arguments and policy proposals don't really work, in my experience, until straits become desperate enough for enough people.

    If this argument were as easy as it sounds, I think more meat and potato Democrats would be making it. It fits with their original conception of their politics and harkens back to a time of liberal hegemony.

    But a lot of Democrats learned the hard way at the polls that these kinds of arguments--or rather the liberal ideology underpining them--simply wasn't pulling with voters the way it once did. This is an ideological struggle, IMO, not so much about policy.

    At bottom, I think Genghis is right. There is no shortcut to building an ideologically based movement ("extremism in defense of liberty is no sin") that is also based on different and demonstrable economic ideas. Unless and until you have the numbers on your side and a clearly articulated ideology, you're always on the outside looking in or getting squashed by the larger group within the party.

    If everyone basically accepts Milton Friedman, none of this will go anywhere. You end up sounding like your calling for "temporary serfdom," if you see what I mean. Hard to sell.

    Someone in The Nation wrote an interesting article about how we need to recaste government as a source of personal liberty--tap into basic symbols--rather than as a limitation on personal liberty as it's now portrayed. I'm not sure he got much beyond this in terms of how to go about it.


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:13pm

    Good to see your name here, tintin.

    =)


    by bwakfat on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 2:32pm

    Thank you, Bwak. T

     


    by Tintin (not verified) on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 4:13pm

    I think, bottom line, unless you're walking out to go somewhere...you aren't really going anywhere.

    If you're trying to push Obama in a more progressive direction, that's fine, but there are some considerations. While progressives were important to his election, there weren't enough of us to put him over alone. He needed the independents and defecting Republicans.

    For example, we weren't enough, or enthusiastic enough, to keep the House and Pelosi as Speaker.

    Obama's very aware of this, and thus always has to walk a line between progressives and independents. So while he "has" us, we and the other members of his coalition "have" him. He can't really move too far to the right or left and expect to get re-elected.

    Unless we can swell our numbers more substantially or become huge money donors, then there is a limit to our sway. Becoming a smelly irritant just isn't enough, IMO. And allowing him to lose by not showing up, giving money, or campaigning is really just a way to shoot ourselves in the foot. We already did that with the House. Let's not do it again in 2012.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 2:11pm

    When the Republicans (R ) come to power they take care of their base, in that way their donors are flush with cash. The Republicans also attack the infrastructure of the Democratic machine.

    Obama and the democrats (r) come to power and the bankers get bailed out and the poor middle class Democrats, are busted and left to fend for themselves.

    Unless we can swell our numbers more substantially or become huge money donors,

    Obama the General on the Potomac wants to lead us in singing Kumbaya and bipartisanship, telling us how he’s the President of all the people, even those adamantly opposed to his policies.

    A weak general who cant recognize the enemy and allows them the opportunity to regroup; allowing the republican machine to regroup, so it can launch more attacks, so that now Obama has to watch his flanks.

    Now he has multiple fronts. He must protect the independants  he must protect the republican swing voters. All because he failed, to deliver the decisive blow when the Republicans suffered devastating losses in the first battle.

    History records; when the Army of the Potomac failed to pursue the retreating Confederate Armies,, the war lasted much longer.

    It makes me believe, both the democrats( r)  and the Republicans (R) love this war, this "class war"

    WAR PROFITEERS?   

    One party the (R ) assures they have the funds to support their troops and run a campaign, and the other uses fear tactics because their troops are cash strapped, their broke and losing their homes. Democrats didn’t protect their lines of support.  

    We need a new General.  


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/17/2011 - 3:04pm

      Obama's stimulus package was hardly laissez faire--and it didn't work.


    by Aaron Carine on Sun, 12/01/2013 - 10:16am

    Thanks, Aaron, for digging back into the archives.

    Though it reminds of how many people no longer post here.

    That's a little sad.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 12/01/2013 - 2:46pm

    Latest Comments