Share your views with me on this

[jpgray]

Poll question: Share your views with me on this

I notice that cycle after cycle in elections for national office, progressives are almost always faced with that old dilemma--evil, or lesser evil. Here are the causes, as I see them:

1. The Democratic candidate is almost -never- going to be agreeable, or even mostly agreeable, to a staunch progressive. None of the major candidates for the presidency this year is a good fit based on any fair examination of rhetoric -and- voting history.

2. Despite this, the GOP will pull out all the stops to defeat even the most conservative Democrat, unless their candidate in the race is a worthless implosion of a competitor (CT, anyone?).

3. True progressive candidates almost never make it through a primary/selection for national office. It happens some for the House, rarely for the Senate, and essentially never for the presidency.

4. Truly progressive third party candidacies -almost- never have the electoral wherewithal to achieve office, for many reasons. The most likely reason is that national campaigns are so money-fueled that nasty policy quid-pro-quos are the rule, and the larger the office the more this erodes any progressive planks in a major candidate's platform.

Given those problems, we have a strange situation. Both the GOP and progressives become united, in a bizarre way. We are united in harsh criticism of the Democratic candidate in national elections. For wildly different reasons, we attack the same target. It is beyond question that such candidates usually -deserve- criticism from progressives; I see that as a beautiful thing and see every reason for it to continue. I start to have problems with it once it demoralizes progressives to the point of splitting our vote, which may allow a GOP candidate to win or steal the office. So here's my question (if you've even read this far :P):

Who benefits most from the crossfire of criticism directed at our national candidates when it causes the progressive vote to split? We're both doing the work of attacking, so who gets to reap the spoils? There's no question that there are many valid reasons not to vote for a major Democratic candidate, but when this happens, who does it help most?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. When the people lose big, who gives a rat's tail who wins?

I vote for progressives. When those progressives are Democrats, I rejoice. Voting for non-progressives, regardless of party affiliation, is a losing proposition.

[jpgray]

2. I can't in good conscience refuse an opportunity to harm the GOP with my vote

They are the cancer on our political system, of which even the DLC are only a pale imitation. And unfortunately the only realistic avenue for doing that harm will be the Democratic nominee. Don't mistake me--if Holy Joe were our nominee, I would definitely go third party. But none of the three major Democratic presidential candidates, for example, are repellent enough for me to waste an opportunity to bury whomever the GOP candidate happens to be.

Perhaps if there was any indication losing elections moved the Democrats left, I would think differently.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. The lesser of two evils is still evil

I see your position as a particularly invidious form of cowardice. I would rather work to change what is broken than wring my hands and keep going on with things as they are.

[jpgray]

5. How would a GOP victory change what is broken?

[Hoof Hearted]

7. I heard in 2000, and 2004, that it didn't matter which candidate was elected

because first Al Gore, then Kerry was accused of being "Republican Lite" - not a dimes worth of difference, etc.

They said it didn't matter, but it did.

I have no patience for that brand of childishness.

[Larry Ogg]

33. To bad you don’t know what Pathocracy is.

I’m sure your subjective opinion of what is childish would be seriously challenged, sort of like when you learned there was no such thing as Santa Clause… oops, you do know there is no Santa Clause, I hope I didn’t shatter your naïve little reality…

[blondeatlast]

16. No kidding. "It's bad, so I'm willing to make it worse to fix it"

just doesn't seem like a smart way of going through life.

[Larry Ogg]

34. Don’t try to fix what you don’t understand n/t

[Larry Ogg]

35. That sounds like a question you might ask the M$N,

I’m sure they will give you an answer you can live with.

Anyhow, how will a conservative victory fix anything?

[MADem]

4. You made the MOST IMPORTANT POINT of this thread

Perhaps if there was any indication losing elections moved the Democrats left, I would think differently.

That's it, exactly. I think that winning elections, though, time after time, can embolden the Democratic Party and result in more Wellstones elected for the betterment of all of us. The stronger the party gets as an entity, the more free it will be to express itself fully.

[hfojvt]

25. it seems to me that having DLCers win elections

moves the Democrats to the right, as Clinton's victory did in 1992, and this has been followed by Democratic losses since then.

[jpgray]

28. What do we call the DLC? Bush-lite? DINOs? Think about that for a minute

I'd say a more reasonable explanation for the cause of our shift right is in the pages of the Powell Manifesto. Once a significant plurality of right-wing politicians attained office (starting with Reagan's landslides, if you like), they were able to provide corporate power with policy in exchange for influence and money. With our massively money-fueled campaigns, right-wing policies gained an inherent media and campaign-fund advantage, and our political atmosphere became toxic for progressives. As a result of this mutually beneficial arrangement, the GOP is coddled and defended, while candidates like Dodd or Kucinich are marginalized or ignored.

The reason the DLC nets the epithets I mentioned above is because they are pallid imitations and craven followers of the ultimate sell-out party, the GOP. They chased after the success and power gained through this quid pro quo. So long as the ultimate symbol of this cancer remains, the corrupt atmosphere will continue and no progressive candidates will get a fair shake--why should they? The media and money centers of this country have everything to gain from supporting the GOP and nothing to lose by belittling and ignoring progressives, and, so long as this preferential treatment exists, ambitious and cowardly Democrats will chase after its rewards. But those Democrats are not the ultimate symbol of the corruption--that remains the GOP. Rejecting the corruption the DLC represents while leaving its Republican source intact (or strengthened) won't fix the problem. And with our wacky two-party system, wherein almost no progressive third party has any traction, defeating a Democrat often means empowering the GOP.

[hfojvt]

30. I think that fifth column is more of a problem

If Democrats are gonna be an opposition, they need to stop agreeing with the people they are trying to oppose. I'd almost rather have a Republican in Congress than a Democrat who runs using the message "I voted for the Bush tax cuts" (Dennis Moore/Jean Carnahan)

Almost. However, in some districts, such as Moore's Kansas district, it probably makes sense. It makes much less sense on the national stage, with people like Lieberman going on National TV to bash Democratic policies, same with a President or Presidential candidate.

[MADem]

31. And they aren't wielding the power that the did in the nineties, when the

Newt's were running roughshod over Congress.

Now we have the reins, and the DLC is a less significant entity than it was back then.

The initial point stands--the more power and representation we have, the broader that representation is.

[blondeatlast]

15. YES! Here's why I'm bringing a clothespin to the voting booth if necessary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2662542

We've GOT to stop the cancer--and that's a very apt description.

[blondeatlast]

17. Do you have a chilld/children?

Before I was a parent I thought much as you did--but when I see the future my son faces, I have to stop the Republicans. It's that simple.

I'll move myself back to my very liberal roots once there's a chance in hell for my son.

[Larry Ogg]

32. I totally agree with your premise

It is as if we are given a choice between execution of our Democracy by firing squad or by hanging. Gee hard choice here, hanging is less messy – unless of course the head of the condemned subject pops off… I think it’s best not to listen to the M$N and keep on voting for those who will work to keep our Democracy alive and well…

People like us are not the ones that need to wake up. Evil is Evil…

[Bongo Prophet]

6. Progressives can benefit by the heat of emotion AND the cold calculation of strategy

Our real weakness is going for the former - the so called purity.
In my opinion, the battlefield is much bigger than political (narrowly defined) but also on the cultural stage at large.
So, it would have been a great benefit to have a moderate but extremely competent center-left administration to counter the memes of "tax and spend" and "GOP = security" while progressives move at ground level, getting more and better reps, invade the media and create our own sub-systems.


As the saying goes, and all progressives have had this thrown at them, "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you will still get evil" - but the underlying truth is -"Yes, but getting LESS evil is better than the full on evil."
It is better to have a little breathing room in which to work.

Moving the causes forward is easier without the daily onslaught of neocons - the outrage factor dulls, and they keep moving the table rightward into neofascist theocratic petro-imperilism. Evil squared.


PS - I always read your posts, jpgray. One of the more valuable DUers here. :hi:

[jpgray]

9. I think most agree we need both, but it's easy to become radicalized by the high stakes

When such fundamental pillars of law as Habeas Corpus are thrown down, it's understandable to see a greater insistence on total purity. When so much has been lost, and the opposition is so radical, it's completely natural for us to entrench--to refuse compromise on any and every point in an effort to stop the bleeding. We're not to the point of people throwing Kucinich under the bus for his flag amendment vote, etc., but we're getting there.

The danger with that compulsion is losing our clout in deciding policy--in effecting actual change in government. To do that, we have to elect as many sympathetic people to office as possible. Since our atmosphere is so completely toxic to progressive candidates, it must be changed. And new policy is all that can change it. To effect policy, we either need to get the most reasonable people possible in office, or we have to wait for a disaster that galvanizes the populace.

Again, if I saw any indication that Democratic losses moved the party left, I wouldn't argue the point. But we have seen it move to the right instead, as the GOP consolidates power and influence. It's extremely frustrating.

Thanks for the thoughtful words! :hi:

[Bongo Prophet]

13. Well, we know disasters can move everything so far right it hurts

not saying you or I have ever believed this, but it was a "theory" that the coming disasters of the W admin would cause a backlash to the left, and so "on the whole" a good thing.
I had strong doubts then, and moreso now, after reflecting on the authoritarian passives, and how the whole neocon, theocon AND paleocons are so fear based that it is their natural environment. They THRIVE in it.

The natural environment of progressives, OTOH, are in community and shared common values, embracing diversity, and caring for those you have never even met. The best situation for us is to be moving in the undercurrents of a competent government, and making inroads at both the local levels as well as in exec branch - up and coming lawyers, scientists, etc. And keep the pressure from the left in battling the dittoheads, so their memes don't take hold.

We have a great opportunity this election year for repudiation of "conservatism" of neocons, fiscal responsibility, environment and on and on.
We are SO not taking nearly the advantage of this that we should.
We should be shouting from the rooftops how repubs are blocking everything, explaining how Grover "Drown in bathtub" govt hurts us all, and bringing up EXTREMELY popular bills for Bush to veto.
Run against that, and hard. We have to move the discussion parameters, and not just change bodies from R to D.

Good thread, jpgray.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Fortunately, democracy allows every one to make up their own minds.

I'm not sure if you're talking about progressives on DU, or in general.

Both major party's candidates are singing to the "middle" to capture the nomination and throwing sops to the wings. Progressive or conservative.

Both proclaim the usual "not as bad as" as good reason to vote for them. Both proclaim disaster, catastrophe, and the destruction of the Republic if they aren't elected.

The progressives are shunted aside, given their gruel, and expected to hold their noses and shut up for the good of the party.

Some of us refuse.

[jpgray]

11. But how does such a refusal change that toxic atmosphere?

Or is it more about the personal morality of the vote, as opposed to its global effects? Progressive candidates for protest voting have always been available, yet even when Nader netted his most significant numbers (for all his flaws, his platform is superb) we did not see the country move left. We did not see either party move left. We saw the GOP consolidate power and take advantage of the split vote, and that fact remains--apart from the truth that major Democrats have done very little to earn progressive votes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. It is about the personal morality of the vote.

IMO everybody votes (doesn't vote) in answer to their own personal morality/integrity. To say otherwise is nonsensical. Even someone whose vote is bought outright, is answering to their own personal morality.

I have long since given up the delusion that my vote is going to change the world, ensure peace, or bring about the second coming. With that little bit of humility in mind, I feel free to "vote my conscience" and do my bit in other, real ways, to make the world a bit better...maybe.

For instance, a couple of days ago, I received an email from Kiva.org that one of the loans we made has been paid off. Tonight, I intend to make another loan with the money received from that loan that is now in my account. Will it change the world? I rather doubt that the $25 that I loaned to that shepherd in Azerbaijan is going to do much but buy him another sheep. Or, that the $25 that I'll loan to somebody in Chad, Guatemala, or Kenya, will transform America into progressive country. But, I do bet that it will actually help some poor person have a little better chance in the world. And, have a much larger, and far more real, effect than my single vote will on anyone's lives.

[jpgray]

23. You consistently make a very reasonable case for the conscience vote

And I appreciate it every time I see it. Hopefully it serves as a reminder to anyone reading this sort of thread that voting one's conscience should not be dismissed as "selfish" or "vain" for the reasons you describe. While DUers often disagree with protest votes on these terms (especially for Nader in 2000), they should -not- unfairly doubt the intelligence or honesty that motivates them, as it really poisons any discussion on the issue with prejudice and mistrust.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. And, I appreciate your challenging topics.

:applause:

[Two Americas]

10. false dichotomy

The traditional left wing principles and ideals of the Democratic party have always brought the greatest electoral success.

The pervasive notion that we have a choice between standing firm for the principles of the party OR winning is the very thing that causes failure.

The party must stand for people over profits, the interests of labor over capital, and human rights over the rights of property in order to represent a genuine alternative to the Republicans. This is the platform that has always been the most successful for the party as well, so it is not true that we need to choose between practicality and idealism. For Democrats, idealism is made practical, and practicality is animated with idealism.

Once having taken that strong traditional stand on fundamental and universal principles, ALL progressive causes can succeed within that context. Failing to take that stand, the public is suspicious of and resistant to the progressive causes promoted in a vacuum as isolated issues. You must start with principles and ideals, and move from the general to the specific. It will never work to try to cobble together a progressive platform from a gaggle of position ion issues - all issues selected by the right wing and the two available positions on every issue defined by the right wing - without a broad and universal statement of principles and ideals to weave the whole thing together.

Politicians represent us. Once we have our heads screwed in straight about this, they will have something to represent. They are not products being marketed. They are not set out on a merchandise counter for us to select from. They are not static or fixed entities. Politics are dynamic. People change.

Meanwhile, we should support and politician moving, however fractionally or tentatively, in the right direction on these broad issues around which a powerful consensus can form - particularly the elephant in the living room: economic injustice and inequality of opportunity caused by the massive unchecked power of the wealthy few through corporate and Wall Street domination of every facet of our lives. If we don't respond with our support, they cannot move farther in that direction. It is going at things backwards to say that they aren't where they need to be so we shouldn't support them, and it is backwards to say that once the public supports Democratic ideals and principles we will then start talking about them.

Do not be seduced by the siren song of "practicality." It is luring us to our destruction.

If we start with what is — and that is what the practicality and “be realistic” arguments are about — we will always have what is.

"Some men see things as they are and ask 'Why?' I dream things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"
Robert F. Kennedy

[jpgray]

12. The strongest progressive shift, the New Deal, was only possible with the racist Solid South

Any reasonable purist would refuse to include much of that delegation in the party. While many of the region's elected officials tried to block FDR's most progressive ideas at every turn, they were crucial in providing the votes to push through what -did- become policy.

So how does this square with your theory that purism has historically brought us progress? The New Deal Democratic Party was -anything- but pure.

[Two Americas]

14. purism

Nothing has been more deadly to the fortunes of the Democratic party than the "purism" debate.

Thinking that politics is about "purism" comes from several significant modern shifts in political thinking. The first started after the 1960's, when millions of activists abandoned political activism to "find the truth within themselves." Since then, politics has become a matter of "personal choice" and that sooner or later boils down to likes and dislikes, preferences, feelings and prejudices. It is increasingly taking on a quasi-religious aspect, and of course in the religious realm "purism" makes sense. In politics, it dooms people to being isolated and alienated from one another, and unable to find common cause. When all politics are based on personal preferences, we have 300 million political parties each containing one member, and there is no way to build political groups without people compromising on their personal preferences since each individual has their own "truth" about things, and all truths are presumed to be equal in value and importance.

Another modern shift in political thinking is the result of the ascension of corporate propaganda to dominance over all of our thinking and every single aspect of our lives, and the subsequent (and intentional) elimination of any alternative narratives about economics in politics to a completely pro capital free market commercialized mentality. This has institutionalized McCarthyism and red-baiting, and has established libertarian free-market notions as the baseline - the context within which all political discussions must occur. This has eliminated the entire left side of the political discussion to the point that the economic policies of Richard Nixon would today be seen as left wing. Everything to the Left of Nelson Rockefeller moderate Republicanism is now off the table - unless we out it back on the table.

Another modern shift in political thinking that has crippled the Democratic party is the confusion of methods - tactics and strategy - with principles and ideals. Democrats defend methods as though they were defending ideals and principles, and compromise on principles and ideals as though that were good tactics. A chronic inability to distinguish between the two makes it impossible to know when and where to compromise, and so leads to two absolutist positions - no compromise on anything, even to include what we wear in a protest action in Congress, or else an attitude of "whatever it takes to win." We traded getting the results we must have through collective action and intelligent use of tactics and strategy for being the change we wish to see in a highly individualized and self-centered way.

Yes, the Democratic party once built a coalition - based on the defense of all working people and based on equality and justice for all - that included many in the South who were racists. However, it was within that broad and powerful context of defense of the rights and well being of all working people that the battles for Civil Rights were fought and won. That may not have happened otherwise.

Today, since we are bereft of any of the traditional values of duty and honor, of self-sacrifice and the working for the collective good, and since we cannot tell the difference between a principle and a tactic, a stand and a lifestyle choice, effective political actions and mere gestures, we flounder about trying to match "our personal values" to some shallow and static analysis of each politician. So we would either say that we will never make any kind of alliance with those who do not share out values, or we say that we will make any sort of alliance or compromise for the sake of winning and then scream and shout back and forth at each other about this. Both are very weak, and both are doomed to failure, both are based on a faulty view of reality and an unworkable concept as to what politics even is.

Any one can be pure in doctrine and be a party of one. Anyone can be expedient and do whatever it take to win. Intelligent and successful political action if the artful blend of the two. Politics is about brining to life that which does not exist, it is not about scanning the choices that already exist and merely choosing one as though it were an exercise in consumerism.

[jpgray]

18. I appreciate the thoughtful posts, but I'd argue a few of your premises

In my opinion, I am not presenting the dichotomy you describe. Nowhere do I say that the disillusionment that leads to protest votes -only- helps the GOP. I'd argue rather that at this point, it helps the GOP more than it helps progressives. In something as complex and interdependent as mass human behavior (an election) it would be facile and irresponsible of me to claim an absolute cause and effect can be described. And in terms of holding to ideals, denying the GOP further influence in government at every opportunity I consider to be a moral imperative to every progressive, and it should not be easily thrown aside. Never thrown aside? I wouldn't say and have not said that. Do any of the three major Democratic candidates for the presidency represent that breaking point? Not in my estimation. The importance of defeating a Huckabee, a McCain or a Romney is paramount in my mind. Democratic victory is not the most desirable of side effects, but being guaranteed one or the other, how could you laugh off the consequences of another four years of a GOP executive branch?

We agree completely that extreme purist -or- strategic voting will take progressives nowhere.

I would disagree strongly with your view that the coalition held together on the defense of working people. Racist Southern Democrats abandoned the party in -droves- with the realization of the Powell Manifesto, as they saw a new method for obtaining and holding power by selling out those ideals as thoroughly as possible. They changed their values when they saw the available rewards. This is, again, -nothing new- for either party. For politicians, values are changeable, while ambition and greed are constant. Was FDR looking out for the working class with internment? Was Truman or Kennedy looking out for them with rampant economic imperialism? Localize this period of mystical Democratic unity for ideals if you would, I'd like to hear exactly when it supposedly existed.

Your thesis also ignores the base and ugly truth of politics--even the best progressive candidate has zero effect on policy if he or she fails to win election. This has been true throughout all our country's history. And our atmosphere is currently extremely toxic to progressive views. Why? Because we have a ridiculously money-fueled campaign system, and a majority of politicians who are willing to trade policy for favor and influence. This exists on both sides of the aisle, but by far most of its members are Republican, and the de-facto symbol of this cancer is the GOP. The DLC and others are the palest of imitations. Their methods -are- flawed, and they -have- sold out their traditional values. But more GOP representation in government does nothing to solve these problems. It instead exacerbates them (as we've seen) and therefore must be prevented.

If you have this environment wherein no serious progressive candidate will be given a fair shake, and the only way to change that environment is via policy (media ownership rules, public financing of campaigns, etc.), how does a protest vote improve the situation? What does it change? Have the many recent Democratic losses (and the resultant GOP victories) moved the country left? No. Is there any analysis done -ever- of why non-voters don't vote, or whether progressives are abandoning the Democrats? No. From Reagan on this cesspool of corruption has spread from its source--the GOP. The craven Democrats who follow are not the primary cause, but a deplorable and evil symptom. They merely follow the success of the GOP as spineless shadows, and if the wind blows the other way and brings the GOP to heel, they will become the "evil" and more progressive minds will become the "lesser evil." This has occurred all throughout political history--from Thucydides on there is palpable evidence of it.

[Two Americas]

19. good response

I appreciate the thoughtful posts, but I'd argue a few of your premises.

No problem. Thanks for giving my thoughts such careful consideration.

Nowhere do I say that the disillusionment that leads to protest votes -only- helps the GOP. I'd argue rather that at this point, it helps the GOP more than it helps progressives.

I am not a big fan of protest votes under any circumstances. I hear you when you say that now is the time for unity. Keep in mind that I have been hearing that for 40 years - "just this one election because it is so important just this one little compromise and then we can go back to being leftists and work within the system and change things once we are in office...."

Every election cycle it seems to start earlier and earlier.

The importance of defeating a Huckabee, a McCain or a Romney is paramount in my mind. Democratic victory is not the most desirable of side effects, but being guaranteed one or the other, how could you laugh off the consequences of another four years of a GOP executive branch?

Who is the straw man laughing off Republican victories? There is a strange connection between the calls for being practical so we can beat republicans, and then not actually beating Republicans. Seems like a trap to me, you know? Why do the Republicans not find themselves in this perpetual conundrum? How come they can lead with their most right wing ideologues and still get the job done? Why do we fear that, and always seek to move to the center - which is now actually no longer the center, but way off to the right?

I would disagree strongly with your view that the coalition held together on the defense of working people. Racist Southern Democrats abandoned the party in -droves- with the realization of the Powell Manifesto, as they saw a new method for obtaining and holding power by selling out those ideals as thoroughly as possible. They changed their values when they saw the available rewards. This is, again, -nothing new- for either party. For politicians, values are changeable, while ambition and greed are constant. Was FDR looking out for the working class with internment? Was Truman or Kennedy looking out for them with rampant economic imperialism? Localize this period of mystical Democratic unity for ideals if you would, I'd like to hear exactly when it supposedly existed.

You are looking at this like a purist. What were FDR's true intentions? and look over here at these sell-outs and failures. Sure. This is not so much about politicians as it is about us - their constituency. Politicians didn't initiate the Abolition movement, the movement for women's voting rights, the civil rights movement, the labor movement, and politicians never will initiate great social movements.

Your thesis also ignores the base and ugly truth of politics--even the best progressive candidate has zero effect on policy if he or she fails to win election.

Here is where we disagree. You say first get elected then we take stands. I say that it works better the other way. Take stands, and that will get you elected and then once you are elected you have a mandate for doing something.

Look at the Congress we got by following this method. "First we must regain control over Congress." Right. They ran on timid centrist platforms and they are running Congress as timid centrists. If being timid centrists was successful for them - got them elected - why would they ever change now?

If you have this environment wherein no serious progressive candidate will be given a fair shake, and the only way to change that environment is via policy (media ownership rules, public financing of campaigns, etc.), how does a protest vote improve the situation? What does it change? Have the many recent Democratic losses (and the resultant GOP victories) moved the country left? No. Is there any analysis done -ever- of why non-voters don't vote, or whether progressives are abandoning the Democrats? No. From Reagan on this cesspool of corruption has spread from its source--the GOP. The craven Democrats who follow are not the primary cause, but a deplorable and evil symptom. They merely follow the success of the GOP as spineless shadows, and if the wind blows the other way and brings the GOP to heel, they will become the "evil" and more progressive minds will become the "lesser evil." This has occurred all throughout political history--from Thucydides on there is palpable evidence of it.

Well, I am no fan of protest votes, and won't vote for Nader. However, a vote for Edwards or Kucinich in the primaries is NOT a protest vote and does NOT hurt the party. It puts delegates into the convention, it keeps ideas alive in the campaign season, and it builds strength for the future.

I am not talking about whether or not beating Republicans is important. I am disagreeing with you as to the best way to beat them.

[jpgray]

21. I think we mostly agree on things, and I apologize if I misrepresented any of your arguments

I neglected to mention (but hoped it was clear) that my concern about a progressive split is focused on the general election. In the primaries, I am all for voting one's conscience as fully as possible given the available candidates.

As far as Congress, your criticism is spot on. No one could argue this has been an effective majority. It is important, I believe, to keep in mind the tiny margin of our majority and our caucus's essential disunity when considering the lack of action. With Holy Joe in the Senate and forty-seven acknowledged Blue Dogs plus associated skittish freshmen in the House, our delegation's behavior is more understandable (though no less deplorable).

As far as "take stands, you will get elected" I have to disagree in part. Yes, triangulation and vacillation is popular with exactly no one, and offensive to anyone paying attention. However, strong progressive stands have no media support whatsoever, and wherever they appear they are ignored or ridiculed. Strong right-wing economic stances and the bald-faced lies that sell them are carefully coddled. To give one easy example, in one 2000 debate Bush called -Gore- a liar for correctly noting his tax cuts would go in vast majority to the extremely rich. It was revealing, given the intense media scrutiny for Gore "exaggerations" that the press happened to entirely bury and ignore this huge lie of Bush's. What was the big story on that debate? Gore sighing and rolling his eyes. Also, we have had strong progressive stances in Kucinich and Nader, and solid liberal stances in candidates like Dodd. No voter will ever hear about them. What we do hear is trivial, subjective image coverage, or "character" analysis. In 2000 an acknowledged alcoholic was the candidate most Americans wanted to have a beer with, whereas a man who made almost no factual errors was successfully painted as a compulsive liar. Gore was the phony, while Bush's ranch purchase in 1999 was clearly an indication of his deep cowboy roots. Despite his dislike for horses, of courses. :D

The reason for this is pretty clear, in my view--large corporations and their media subsidiaries gain a -lot- from strong right-wing policies (see recent FCC behavior for evidence) and gain almost nothing from strong progressive policies. Given the current ownership rules, the conglomerates that control the media also have concerns in defense spending, energy policy, environmental regulation, etc. And it is pretty clear that these days media divisions are required to pull their weight in terms of profit, and they have ample opportunity during an election.

I will never cast a primary vote for Hillary or Obama, but am resigned to support them in the GE, barring any extreme circumstances. That's mostly what this thread is about, and I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. It certainly wasn't for the sake of brevity, no?

:dunce:

[Two Americas]

27. asking the right questions

We are asking the right questions, I think, and wrestling with the most important issues here. No problem, as far as I am concerned if we have minor disagreements or misunderstandings along the way as we tackle these very difficult challenges.

Our main task is to get the truth in front of people and let them make up their own minds, to highlight and present the actual state of affairs rather than to sell people on our solutions. The Edwards campaign gives us an excellent opportunity to do just that. How and when the tyranny will be overthrown we cannot predict, but it most certainly will never happen without an uprising by the general public and everything Edwards is saying is leading to that. The more people who pick up the torch from him and carry it forward, the faster it will happen.

People focus too much on personalities and the horse race. There is a much more important contest going on to win the hearts and minds of people. Any progress there is solid progress that cannot be taken away. We do not need so much to get people to think a certain way or to see things a certain way as we do need people to look and think in areas that no one has been talking about until now. That will inevitably lead to good things. That is the latent and mostly untapped power of the message from Edwards.

[MGKrebs]

26. "If we start with what is ...we will always have what is." Except...

That's the one part I disagree with in an otherwise beautifully written post.

I think we have to consider the context. To me, insisting on ultra-progressive idealism at the presidential campaign level when we don't have any sort of strong progressive majority anywhere at the state or local level (with a few exceptions), is automatically an all-or-nothing approach. Presidential candidates have to try to connect with a whole lot of different kinds of voters, and as far as they can tell, the ideological progressives are a pretty small constituency right now.

I have no problem with progressives supporting the most progressive presidential candidate they can find, but it is disturbing to me that any candidates outside that bubble is basically considered by some to be "the same as George Bush".

Presidential politics isn't the beginning of the progressive revolution. It would just be the most visible result. In the meantime, we have to work to get state and local progressives elected. Sooner or later, the presidential candidates will have to be what we want because we will have created a constituency that will support them and who they must respond to. Some people seem to want to impose progressivism even though most of the country hasn't bought into it yet. Progressivism from the top down is a hard task.

[Two Americas]

29. good points

Yes, we do need to consider the context. But I do think that we err too far in that direction and as a result the general public never hears the dream.

I also think that we look at the spectrum wrong - ultra-progressive at one end to running to the right centrism at the other end. I would suggest that rather than either of those two approaches we run to the heart - the heart of the broad traditional Democratic party principles and ideals, the heart of the needs of the people, the heart of people's best natures.

I see no need - and great danger - in watering down the core message of the Democratic party.

Yes, the progressives are a small minority, but that means nothing at all. Every political faction is driven by a very small minority, all of them competing for the public ear, and all of them (except us for whatever self-defeating reason) trying to portray themselves as much, much larger than they are.

I say we are the largest faction. I say we are in the majority. I say we are the strongest, and it is time we stop setting things up in our minds so that we think we are weak. We represent the needs of the majority of people in the country, we have the most tested and workable plans and ideas, we have the best track record.

The Republican party represents the interests, needs and desires of the very few with obscene wealth and massive power. A relatively small but very powerful and controlling faction within the Democratic party represents those sane interests, or else is unwilling to confront or antagonize those interests. We, on the other hand, represent the needs, interests and desires of the other 90% of the population. We are in the much more powerful position and we represent far more people than those other factions do. But we do not use that power, we give it away, starting with the way we define ourselves and the way we look at the political landscape. We have bought into the "fringe" lies, and the "far left" lies, and the "purist" lies and the “socialist” and the “radical” lies about us. We are letting the enemy define us and intimidate us, and we are tolerant of the enemies talking points within our own camp.

The Republicans know the nature of the battle—they started it and have been wining it —and they know where the battle lines are. The promote the interests of the few consistently, predictably, effectively and reliably. With that focus, they can make many mistakes and still win, while every error we make threatens to be fatal or at least seriously damaging to our cause. That will remain true so long as we refuse to take up the opposite position to the republicans, clearly, fearlessly and coherently. We must be just as reliable, relentless, effective and consistent in defending and promoting the needs and interests and desires of the other 90% as the Republicans are in defending and promoting the needs and interests and desires of the privileged few. Once we do that—which is a simple shift in attitude—we can move mountains, and it can happen very quickly. Until we do that, it will always be two steps forward and three backwards.

We can do this. It isn’t easy, but it is simple. The reason that we don’t is that we are crouching in fear and indulging ourselves in “what ifs” and other sorts of confusion and disorientation. This is the good fight, we can win it, and it awaits us now. We are the missing ingredient and all other things we need are falling into place. We can no longer be missing in action, can no longer afford the luxury of merely being right about things and sitting in isolation and alienation. We stop being weak “nobodies” the moment we say that we are somebody, and say that we stand with the other 100 million “nobodies” and have the courage to stand up to the “somebodies.”

We can do this. We must do this.

[rucky]

22. Protest by REGISTERING independent.

Progressives are taken for granted because they're party registered.

vote for whoever you want, but you don't have to sign-up for the beating progressives take every election cycle. Idependents have more influence on campaigns and elections than the left end of the party does.