It’s Time for Progressives to Take a Cue From the Tea Party

[LiberalLovinLug]

Mods: I hope this is in the right group. Its not primaries, more like post-primaries.

Bernie Sanders has effectively conceded the 2016 nomination. I won’t pretend I’m happy about it. However, I choose to work within the framework of reality — even when I hate it.
My investment in his message is profound. I’ve never wanted a candidate to win more than I’ve wanted Bernie Sanders to win. Actually, it’s not even about Sanders; it’s about his worldview. It’s about his message, his character and his unrelenting determination. But as Mick Jagger once sang, you can’t always get what you want...

........

If you’re truly interested in a revolution — the one Sanders started — then you will keep the momentum going. You will stay in the game when a battle is lost because the goal is to win the war. I know what I’m about to say will piss many off, but it needs to be said: While members of Occupy Wall Street were protesting and in the process impeding local businesses, members of the Tea Party got busy and ran for local, state and federal government offices — and they won (because progressives didn’t vote). The result was legislative power for Republicans and crushing defeats for Americans.

.........

If we want to change the corruption in the system, we need to become part of the system. At the very least, we need vote for the down-ticket candidates — the ones who have legislative power. We need to put pressure on them and keep the pressure on. Why would a corrupt senator or representative work for the people if there’s no real threat of losing their position?
A revolution is not about one run for president. It’s about rolling up our sleeves and taking back the House and the Senate and when we do, it’s about letting these lawmakers know we’re watching their every move. It’s about paying attention. It’s about getting involved in your local communities and running for city council, school board positions and any other position where you have the power to effect real change.
No matter which presidential candidate you’ve supported until now, you have a clear choice. Clinton supporters can gloat and falsely assume that Congress will take care of itself. Sanders supporters can give up because they didn’t get exactly what they wanted. Or both sets of supporters can work to change our system for the better.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimberley-a-johnson/its-time-for-progressives-to-take-a-cue-from-the-tea-party_b_9789778.html


Bernie supporters and all of those aware of desperate need for a truly progressive strategy both socially AND economically must keep the revolution going. It will be easy to despair, watching the office of the Presidency occupied by someone to the right of Obama, (whether Clinton or Trump). Watch the country be dragged further into an oligarchy of the corporate class. Be despondent of so many fooled into voting against their best interests. We have to work like hell to ensure that progressive candidates are elected locally despite the uphill battle against not only the GOP, but the third way corporatists that rule the Democratic Party who will even support a Republican over a progressive Democrat if it comes down to that.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. You said CLINTON OR TRUMP , DOES that mean you see no difference?

[LiberalLovinLug]

2. No, of course not

But they do have in common that they are both to the right of Obama. Obviously Clinton would lead a more stable government, even if simply continuing the march to a full oligarchy, but unlike Trump, she wouldn't have to cater to a Tea Bagger base, but also does not seem to be concerned about satisfying the liberal base of her own party either. Yes, the status quo, is preferable to an unpredictable megalomaniac racist populist like Trump as President.

But on some issues he is to the left of Hillary. He is against cutting SS. He was against the Iraq War (before Hillary decided she made a "mistake&quot . And he has spoken of his support for Single Payer universal healthcare.

I suspect he's actually more of an opportunist and less of an idealist and will alter his positions to line up with those he wants votes from. But that's no different than Hillary either.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

3. Repeating Drumpfs bullshit policy points as if they trump Hillary, so to speak?

Keep it coming

[LiberalLovinLug]

5. Missing the point entirely

They are both opportunists. I don't believe much of anything either says. I simply pointed out a few viewpoints that Trump has been recorded as saying which put him to the left of Hillary. Some of his "policy points" themselves DO trump Hillary's from a liberal point of view....on paper. Believing anything he says is another matter. Obviously, Hillary has a lot of policies that are to the left of Trump's public posturing for the Bagger Base, especially on the social policies. Although economically, her neo-liberal agenda is closer to Trump than Sanders.

This was not an OP about comparing Hillary's policies to Trump's policies. Or some kind of litmus scale. It was on continuing the political revolution that Sanders put a face on. I simply commented that both are to the right of Obama. Do you deny that?

[justiceischeap]

18. Newsflash: ALL politicians are opportunists, including Sanders

The proof that Sanders is an opportunist is that as an Independent he took the opportunity to run on the Democratic Party's ticket. If he really was interested in changing things, he would have made a bigger impact running as an Independent but, of course he couldn't because of closed primaries. He knew this, so he ran on a parties ticket that he and a lot of his supporters see as being no better than the GOP.

As far as making the inference that Clinton is more like Trump than Obama, means to me that you're ignoring how much like Sanders and Obama her Senate record actually is and just because her approach is more pragmatic than sweeping, sudden change doesn't make her a lesser candidate for that. Her pragmatism appeals to Bible Belt voters, who are also part of the Democratic Party. All of my relatives that live in the Midwest would never vote for Sanders but are willing to look at Hillary. As much as Sanders supporters hate to admit it, these people matter too.

I suspect that if she wins the Primary and then the General elections, she'll actually govern more to the left because right now she knows she needs not only progressives but moderate Democrats to win.

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. Puttng words in my mouth

I never said, or inferred, that Clinton is more like Trump than Obama. I said Clinton was more to the right than Obama. Not "crazy land" right (thanks Jon Stewart). And I already pointed out a few positions that Trump, on paper, is to the left of Hillary. So I don't know where you got that.

As far as all politicians being opportunists, I'll concede that point. Every successful person is to some degree, an opportunist. Yes, Sanders was smart enough to have seen how it went for Ralph Nader. Someone with exemplary record of sticking up for the consumer, and critical of the pandering to the 1% during his run, falling in line with most progressive Dems. And then not only predictably failing to win, but vilified relentlessly ever since for daring to run as a third option and splitting the left vote...no matter how good his platform.

I was "inferring" that there are opportunist politicians that present themselves as one thing, in order to attract a segment of voters, and then once in office, switch their priorities to taking advantage of the new opportunities of being friends with high rollers. I think Obama was that type of opportunist to some degree, and I'm convinced that Hillary also will consolidate her "opportunities" with the 1% once in office as well. There is zero evidence that Hillary would ever suddenly stop her steady march to the right and veer hard left.

Sanders is only an opportunist is regards to getting in the race. He may very well, if somehow was elected, backstab his supporters, and decide he wants a nice little nest egg for his family. But I doubt it, and his record shows a man not wavering in his positions and principles over decades. Clinton and Trump have both drastically flip flopped on different issues over the years. That Bernie is the type of opportunist that would have used his opportunity once in office, to rally support, use the bully pulpit, for the same things he has championed all his career. Fairness and justice at all levels.

[tonyt53]

26. Uh oh, your providing clear facts

Bernie's supporters won;t like or accept that.

[Bluerome]

4. The tea party is on the verge of destroying

the GOP. Is that what you are advocating?

Trump's about to be slaughtered in the general. Any other candidate had a better shot against Hillary. This is your strategy?

[Albertoo]

6. Absolutely. The Tea Party is the model of what NOT to follow

Tea Party = Ted Cruz = unelectable

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. Except the Tea Party is NOT anything like the Democrat liberal base

They rely on easily disputed lies, and Cruz is an unlikable lying liar. That's why amongst the final four candidates, Sanders comes out on top. Because he dares to tell the truth on the state of the union.

If you actually read the OP, the only thing the author advocated that was similar to what the bagger lot did was to continue the fight AFTER the primaries. And work to elect local reps that share in the need for a real political revolution. It helps that they have the Koch brother money, and that third way Dems also have more corporate kickback money to play with, but if enough progressive Dems carry on the fight, we can alter the party from within no matter what the bought-off leadership wants.

I'm not a Bernie-or-Bust advocate. Its not a radical thought to try and change the party from within. Jeez.

[Albertoo]

10. I must confess to not being a Bernie fan

Let's be real: the subprime crisis has started a long term downward cycle (Kondratieff).
And globalization has hit blue collars in the developed world hard.
What we need are fixes 'a la' Keynes, but resist Socialism like FDR did.

For me, it's FDR si, Bernie no

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Speaking as a REAL, dues paying Marxist and revolutionary socialist.......

Bernie IS an FDR style Democrat. He is emphatically NOT a socialist.

[Albertoo]

12. You are a revolutionary Marxist? Congratulations.

I see that experience hasn't marred your optimism.

[merrily]

16. First, FDR is deceased and was a one off. MAYBE George Washington

was a comparable President because he too had to hold the country together and make it up as he went along.
Second, a number of FDR's programs were indeed socialistic. Third, Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, not a socialist. Since you equate the two, you should probably do some research about the differences. Many posts on this board have compared the two. Or wait for zombie FDR to run.

[Albertoo]

19. I am not sure you got your terms right

When you write

Bernie is a Democratic Socialist

here is the definition (wiki):

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy
alongside social ownership of the means of production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

And "social ownership of the means of production" at best doesn't work,
at worst ends with camps and gulags.

[PowerToThePeople]

20. Uh

And "social ownership of the means of production" at best doesn't work,
at worst ends with camps and gulags.

Bill O'Rieley is that you?

[Albertoo]

21. LOL No risk of that

But still, seriously, you know that if Sanders went on TV to advocate "social ownership of the means of production", he couldn't stay in the race. "social ownership of the means of production" is a nice idea which never ends well.

[merrily]

22. Bernie has never advocated government ownership of the means of production.

As I said, research DU for the differences. Many posts have been done here about it.

Also, in citing gulags, you are conflating a form of government, namely, a brutal dictatorship, with an economic system.

[Hortensis]

29. Tea Party = Kochs. Tea Party - Kochs = 0.

The Tea Party's big mistake was breaking their leash. When they turned on the Kochs their funding dried up, and with it most of the movement. Those TPers in office all went begging for new millionaire backers, promising to do whatever was needed to stay in office. (These guys, as it turns out, like their cushy jobs just as much as others in congress do.)

So, OP, if you really want to emulate the TP (??), in addition to all your more high-minded goals, be sure to identify the people whose support you must have to get and keep power and do whatever it takes to keep them happy. Don't fool yourself -- to keep pleasing your base, you will need money your base doesn't have, and humongous amounts of it. And there's the rub...

Btw, anyone reading the OP doubt the ideological spectrum is a U, or even a circle?

[LiberalLovinLug]

7. It was an opinion piece on learning from the enemy

You can call it a disater for the the GOP. But Ted Cruz, a Bagger favorite son, is running a close second, and may very well be shoe-horned in by shenanegans at the GOP convention. Their base is energized and active. Maybe with wrong-headed beliefs, but they are energized. Yes the GOP are imploding, but it seems like that Bagger Base may very well come out on top at the end of the battle.

Democratic leadership stifle their base and move to the right thinking that they can out-republican Republicans. Its a failed strategy. At least if you care about progressive policies. We need a real alternative to far right. Not a thin veneer hiding behind socially progressive detours.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. That ...

The tea party is on the verge of destroying the GOP.

Is the sub-text.

[HereSince1628]

9. If a person commits to reform because it's overdue, I think she/he is in a difficult spot from which

to vote for the establishment candidate who incorporates things seen as egregiously needing reform into her candidacy.

Such a person might say he/she is trying to stop an awful republican,

Maybe that person can think center-right judicial appointments might be ok, and sensitive to some issue that's at the core of Clinton's coalition.

But, even with that said person must admit that they are really agreeing to postpone those overdue reforms in the party and in Administration of policies of the United States.

I believe -that- difficulty is why so many strongly say they won't/can't vote simply on the basis of who wins the nomination.

That's troublesome in many ways, but the angst that generates is almost certain to make a reform movement inside the party more difficult.

[LiberalLovinLug]

13. Good points

I guess I'd prefer if the inside job would work, and is worth trying first. But yeah that means holding ones nose and voting in a RW corporate-owned Democrat as your highest leader. Then focus the fight on other races. Look at how Timothy Canova is challenging DWS. He needs our support. And the same in the midterms. Bernie has shown that candidates can compete with corporate money with many small donations from a fired up population.

But, and I am not advocating it, but if Hillary is anointed winner of the primary, and then, between Fox and other networks constant bombardment, together with disgruntled Bernie supporters re-posting damaging history and voting third party, and maybe some new allegations pop up (Panama Papers & the Clinton Foundation?)...she actually loses to Donald Trump...some may say that isn't the worst outcome because it leaves open the possibility for Sanders to run again in 2020.

[HereSince1628]

14. I think there are advantages to reforming the party, but it largely depends on Sanders' lead

He really has the key to how it will go forward. He has hundreds of thousands of names and contact information of people willing to volunteer and donate. How Sanders chooses to apply that to the reform movement makes a huge difference to where it goes.

I completely agree that in terms of election efforts the next big step is getting ready for 2018 midterms, and I think that means trying to organize within states, identifying possible targets to be primary-ed and people who might run.

Progressives need to flood the 2018 midterms like a tsunami

Also in the near future is a need for progressives to move themselves into active roles in their precincts and to gain status as delegates to state conventions.

[jwirr]

24. I agree with you but I am a Bernie delegate in a Bernie state

and I feel extremely helpless. I may not feel that way after our district convention when I contact some of the other delegates but I personally think that we need to do something at the state convention regarding the 33 State Democratic Party deal.

They let us vote at the caucus and elect delegates. They are going to let us do the same at the state convention. But I ask exactly what difference it makes? Prior to the caucus they made a deal to collect and give large sums of money to one candidate - Hillary - through the DNC and they also committed out Super-Delegates in the same deal.

Before there was one vote cast. Yeah I am a delegate. But my party gave one candidate both money and support from the SDs long before I could do anything about it. IMO the fight should start at the state conventions. We should not go silently into that dark night.

[HereSince1628]

25. Working inside a party for reform is easier than building a new party

Not that support doesn't exist, it's just really hard to establish ballot access so that huge petition drives aren't necessary at every election.

Frustration is part of working with groups. Hopefully a people's caucus will provide a more positive experience until it becomes dominant.

[jwirr]

32. Oh, I am not giving up but I am very upset by this. I am

only hoping that I am not the only one at the convention that feels this way.

[Wounded Bear]

15. Big problem....

Dems don't have their own media outlet to pimp them. The Tea Party benefited from over a year of over the top coverage by Faux Noise, which artificially promoted their brand.

Besides, I think you can trace what's going on now all the way back to the Wisconsin recall effort, through Occupy Wall Street to now. It's taken a while, but I think we're seeing a resurgence in liberal political participation and muscle.

[merrily]

17. Agree. And the Koch brothers backed the Tea Party financially and in other ways.

[tonyt53]

27. Bernie hasn't lived up to what you are saying

Bernie has supported three candidates running for House seats. He has done nothing to help those running for Senate seats. Nothing. As evidenced by looking at the vote results in WI, it is clear that his supporters have not supported Democrats running for Senate seats. This situation is a failure on the part of Sanders. Now he wants to be completely accepted by the Democrat Party - a party that is has now been attacking. He sounds more like Trump everyday in that regard. You and your "third way corporatists that rule the Democratic Party" have also taken the Trump route. You guys hammered at George Clooney for his massive fundraiser recently. A fundraiser that not a penny went to Hillary. the money all went to other Democrats running for office. Even George knows that it takes money to win in November so by the 2018 midterms, the corporate money will be gone from elections. Odd how Bernie and his followers do not even recognize that fact. Very odd.

[DinahMoeHum]

30. For the long haul beyond 2016: Brand New Congress PAC

https://brandnewcongress.org/

[Paka]

31. Original premise WRONG.

We have not conceded. I have yet to vote thank you.