Progressives and the Democrats 08 and beyond

[justinsb]

Since the debate is being renewed on who should run for President in 08, and especially because Hillary seems to be the favourite of many, I’d like to revisit an old argument for a bit. Which is the one that says that Nader cost the Dems the 00 and 04 elections. This is an excellent illustration of a problem with the Democratic Party and most especially the DLC which is: The Dems and DLC frequently take the progressive vote as a god given right, which it is not.

The argument is, and has been for many years, that progressives should vote Dem because the Dems are more progressive than the Republicans. Progressives are asked to keep quiet during the election, told that they basically have to vote Dem, and then asked to keep quiet and sit at the back of the room after the election. This is not democracy. In a Democracy (or a republic) you have the right to vote for the candidate you feel best represents your views.

The DLC and it’s candidates are, if you look at recent history, what would have recently been called moderate republicans. To those of you who are supporters of the DLC I would ask, what if you had a choice between Bush and Stalin and were told that you had to vote for Bush because he was the more progressive of the two. This is, although a dramatic example, an example of the situation you put progressives in.

If Nader voters cost the Dems the last two elections it is because the Dems failed to put forward a candidate that was acceptable to progressives, that is not the fault of Nader or of his supporters any more than Dole’s loss in 96 was the fault of Libertarians.

I, for one, will not settle again. I will not support Hillary, or Kerry, or Gore, or Lieberman or any other conservative that the DLC dances out and if the DLC brings forward a conservative and that conservative loses I will feel no responsibility. If a candidate I do not endorse or support loses an election, even to a candidate I like less I will lament only that a candidate I did support didn’t win, not that the lesser of two evils lost.

I am considering forming a group (mailing list, forum etc) solely for the purpose of finding, tracking, and supporting progressive candidates for a variety of offices, as well as the discussion of where the line should be beyond which progressive support is withdrawn. If you think you might be interested in such a group, please send me a private message.

Peace,
Justin

[William769]

1. I'm only going to say this once

If your a progressive. Vote for who you want period. I happen to be a yellow dog Democrat. If you don't like the Democratic candidate then don't vote for them, but also don't expect to get your ass kissed either.

[justinsb]

2. Thanks that's basically what I just said

and there is a big difference between getting your ass kissed and getting a seat at the table.

[justinsb]

3. .

[Larkspur]

4. I'll support the post-2000 Al Gore if he should run because he's not

supportive of the DLC anymore, but I won't support Hillary or any of the pro-war Dems, who mostly are DLC spawn.

If Hillary gets nominated in '08, I'll just focus my money and time on local and state level candidates who I can support. That's what i did in 2004.

[justinsb]

5. For me it's not just about being pro-war

It's about being overly pro-corporate. I'd like someone who's willing to put forward serious reforms in a wide variety of areas and who has the backbone to fight for those reforms.

[blm]

33. And you disliked Kerry's advocacy for public-financing of campaigns?

Some states adopted his and Wellstone's federal bill for their own Clean Election Laws.

Are you against Kerry's 10 years of work crafting the Kyoto Protocol with other world leaders? Many corporations were.

Are you against Kerry's position as the lawmaker who has investigated and exposed the most government corruption?


Are you against Kerry's position that US corporations who increase their profits through tax loopholes for overseas finacial arrangements should still be taxed their fair share?

The problem in 2004 was actually alot of new progressive activists who had NO IDEA that John Kerry had a lifetime record more progressive and anti-corruption than any nominee in modern history. They just didn't know enough and the media was little help, and they were too dug in opposing Kerry early on to use their search function to learn more and realize his actual record.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. I don't think that anyone seriously argued that Nader was a factor in '04

[justinsb]

7. I distinctly remember quite a bit of

a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

[kevsand]

8. Before the election,

not after. Before the election, it was true. After the election, it was obvious that Nader had been no where near as much of a factor as he had been in 2000.

[justinsb]

9. Even after the election

there was more than a bit of hostility toward anyone who didn't vote for Kerry.

[kevsand]

11. Not from me.

At least no more than usual. Nader clearly didn't affect a single state in 2004. I would have preferred that he not bothered at all, but my hostility post 2004 is reserved for the real enemy: apathy and stupidity. At least Nader voters were engaged and involved.

Now, if Nader had cost us a state (any state) in 2004, then I would have been really pissed...

[kevsand]

10. Progressives do have a seat at the table.

They're called primaries. Fight tooth and nail to get progressives through the primaries, and no real Dem will fault you, because that's what the primaries are for. Deserting the winner of the primaries after they're over is what gets our goat, and actively supporting third party candidates in general elections will always make you my enemy.

I don't mean that personally, or with hostility, but how hard is it to see that, in elections as close as we've had lately, voting third party instead of the Dem primary winner just enables Repub candidates?
Once the primaries are over, we sometimes are unfortunately faced with the lesser of two evils. Refusal to make that choice is in fact a choice for the greater of two evils.

Without Nader, SCOTUS would never have been involved in 2000, and Bush would never have been "selected." These are simple facts.

[justinsb]

12. But, in my view

and I'm not trying to start an argument, but saying that you should support whoever wins the primaries is like saying you should support whoever wins the general election. In my eyes Kerry was not much better than Bush. If you can't, in good conscience, support the candidate then should you look for someone you can support or not vote at all?

[kevsand]

13. That's a choice that everyone must make for themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, from a practical standpoint there is no difference between voting third party or staying home. Both actions elect Republicans. Taoism and Zen teach us that not to choose is to choose. In this case, that choice is electing Republicans. I do not consider that an ethical alternative. But that could be just me. Ethics obviously are personal.

[justinsb]

14. But if the Dems move to the right to the point

that progressives cannot justify voting for either, then IMO there is a big difference between voting 3rd party and staying home. Although the US is traditionally a 2 party system, 3rd parties have played an important role in history when reforms were needed and the 2 parties of the time were reluctant to move.

[kevsand]

15. Even historically, it's still easier to move

an existing party than create an entirely new one. We can halt, and even reverse, any trend to the right. If progressives do the organizing and mobilizing and turnout, they can control the direction and future of the party. We have to become precinct captains/committeepersons, we have to be most of the volunteer base for local parties, and we have to vote for progressives in primaries.

If we do all that, then we won't have to worry about being faced with the lesser of two evils. Dean wants to rebuild the party from the ground up. This is our chance. Failure to take advantage of it is a failure for progressivism.

I don't intend this to be directed at you personally, because I obviously don't know your history or involvement, but I have to say that I am really tired of "Dems" who complain about the DLC or the DINOs or less than perfect candidates, but don't ever bother to even get involved in their local party. As far as I'm concerned, they are every bit as much to blame for the shift to the right. (End of rant.)

[justinsb]

17. I used to be a ward captain

but even my local DCC only cared about winning, not about issues. I was eventually driven out because I believed that it is better to be right and lose than to join the enemy and win.

[kevsand]

21. Better still to come back the next day with more friends in tow.

I don't find it distasteful to fight the Republicans year after year. It should be no more distasteful to fight Democrats when they are wrong. No change in established or entrenched power structures ever happens overnight. It takes perseverance, and it takes lots of allies. Sometimes you have to find and recruit them yourself. Sometimes they find you. The idea that you had in the original post to work collectively to find and support progressive candidates is dead on. The party needs that. The country needs that.

[IrateCitizen]

18. Historically, it was new parties that moved existing ones...

Case in point -- Woodrow Wilson's reforms and FDR's New Deal. Many of Wilson's reforms were things that the Populists and Progressives had been calling for for many years prior to their implementation. Even more so, many of the planks of the New Deal were things that the Socialists had been pushing for for many years prior to their enactment. In fact, much of the impetus behind the New Deal was to effectively defuse any appeal that the Socialists might have, as they were picking up some mayoral victories by that time.

And the strategy worked. The Democrats offered some reforms, the Socialists faded away, and then business resumed as usual. Maverick political parties are not much different than radical social movements in this country. They are absorbed and commoditized over a period of time, rendering them basically ineffective.

[kevsand]

23. All of that is entirely true.

But it is not the only way that parties can be moved. What third party spurred the shift in the Republicans from the party of Goldwater and Dirksen (or even Gingrich) to the neocons we have today? What third party gave rise to the DLC?

If a new progressive party can help to move the Dems back to the left, then that much at least is for the good. The question remains, at what cost? If the short term effect of that same new progressive party is to directly allow another eight years of neocons after Bush, then how much blood will be spilled in order to preserve an abstract moral high ground?

If the goal is to move the Dems back to progressive values, then why not attack the problem directly by taking back our party?

[justinsb]

31. The third party shift in the Republicans to the neocons

came from the candidacy of Pat Buchanon. Buchanon in blamed, and Perot in Republican circles, for the election of Clinton. But, the Republicans shifted their strategy to bring in as many of those Buchanon and Perot voters as possible and they've won ever since.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Buchanan is a complete anti-neocon

I mean, he's a racist and a proponent of the superiority of Western Christian civilization over all others, but he is just about as far as you can get from the neocons. I mean, he's been an outspoken opponent of our military adventurism post-9/11 (more so that most Democrats), and his magazine, The American Conservative, has been extremely harsh on Bush regarding this point.

[justinsb]

36. I'm not saying Buchanon is a neocon

I'm saying that the rift showed the GOP that they were missing a substantial percentage of their possible vote and they tweaked the platform to include enough of that margin in order to nullify the Buchanon (and Perot) factors the Buchanon people of 92 are likely not entirely thrilled with the GOP but my guess is that most of them voted for Bush both times.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Thanks for the clarification, and I agree with what you said. (nt)

[IrateCitizen]

37. Your examples are not sudden shifts, but very gradual evolutions...

The DLC has risen to ascendancy because the Democratic Party never ceased being a bourgeois party. Had the New Left been able to articulate an alternative vision in the 1960's, as opposed to simply recoiling in horror at the development of advanced capitalist society founded upon multinational corporate entities, then perhaps they might have wrested control away from the bourgeoisie to a certain degree. But the fact is that the bourgeoisie remained in complete control of the party apparatus.

Why is this important? Because the forces controlling the Democratic Party, then, are products of a society of advanced capitalism, and have bought into all of its inherent contradictions and dysfunctions as gospel. This is why the DLC has seen its ideology advance in Democratic Party high circles, while any politicians who question the established corporate order are relegated to eternal backbencher status. The Democratic Party elite have thrown their lot in with corporatism, and those who embrace that path are the ones who will shine.

As for the Republicans, the neocons are actually former Trotskyists, for the most part. In fact, a lot of them used to claim membership in the Democratic Party, but left the party because they believed in provoking a showdown with the Soviets during the Cold War. Everything about them is anti-conservative -- they believe in imposing revolutionary change from the outside rather than adhering to established ideas and norms. However, their influence is primarily in the foreign policy arena, and it dovetails nicely with the rhetoric of the cultural republicans who became organized mainly as a backlash against the excesses of the New Left in the 1960's.

The neocons promote an agenda that is concerned with imposing American ideals and institutions on others, by force if necessary. The cultural conservatives eat this up because they believe it, and they also share a common belief that due to the superiority of our institutions, we are entitled to rule the world (i.e. American exceptionalism). What's funny to me is that the only real organized resistance to the corporatist agenda is coming from the social conservatives -- their denouncement of coarseness and vulgarity being at the core of popular entertainment, which is an assessment that I find some agreement with, even if they are completely in error at where to place the blame.

You speak of "taking back the Democratic Party". My question would be, when was it ours to begin with? And how do we take it back? The problem you fail to recognize is that you're attempting to forge some kind of massive grassroots movement in a highly atomized society passively controlled by an all-pervasive culture industry and mass media.

As for me, I'm more of a revolutionary in thought, and I've resigned myself to living pretty much out of the "mainstream", because when you join the mainstream even with the best of intentions as a rebel or revolutionary, it ultimately assimilates you and commodifies you. If you believe in taking back the Democratic Party, then by all means continue in your effort. Personally, I believe that Marx and his later contemporaries were correct when the recognized that addressing the ills of industrialized (and advanced capitalist) society means relearning history, absent all of the contradictions and false assumptions that permeate our current modes of thought. Working with the Democratic Party is accepting those contradictions at face value, even if you don't realize it, gradually becoming assimilated into the vast corporatist juggernaught.

[kevsand]

40. God forbid we should get our hands dirty by actually

mixing it up in the real world. Unclean! Unclean! (I hope you realize that I'm kidding you here. I know that's not what you said.)

Still, given the choice between remaining distant and aloof out of fear of being co-opted or assimilated, or jumping in with both feet to actually effect change, I'm gonna jump every time, and check for a parachute later.

You are correct to say that in calling for a change in the party, I am advocating grassroots mobilization on an intimidatingly massive scale. Anyone who proposes forming an entirely new third party, progressive or not, is also advocating such an effort. This is, I believe, how democracy works, or is supposed to, anyway, and that's what we're really fighting for, after all. The same could also be said for revolutions. Nobody ever had a successful revolution without a hell of a lot of grassroots organizing up front.

And yes, society is increasingly atomized, and media focused, but nothing has ever been found to be as effective as old-fashioned person-to-person proselytizing or fundamental door-to-door canvassing. Combine that with whatever uniquely new media outlets that the internet eventually evolves into, and we've got a fighting chance.

You are also correct that some of the historical changes we've been discussing were evolutionary rather than sudden shifts. That actually just proves the point that parties can change over time given the proper stimulus, and that forces other than third parties can influence that change. I want the Democratic Party to evolve some more. And I want to change the stimuli.

Nobody ever said any of it would be easy. There are powerful forces standing in our way. But the one thing we have in our favor is that the Democratic Party operates by a fixed set of rules, and they are enforceable. Ultimately, control of the party originates from each individual precinct.

If progressives support progressive candidates at every opportunity, we will get more progressive candidates. If progressives insinuate themselves into the party at every level, if we become the party, then we will be the ones assimilating the old forms into a new structure and vision, instead of the other way around.

And yes, okay, I'm a cheerleader, and a cock-eyed optimist, and an idealist, and everything else one needs to be to persist in the constant struggle for truth and justice (and the Terran Way). I can't help it. It's who I am. I've spent the last twenty-one years providing technical support to grassroots non-profits working for social change. I find political struggles to be part and parcel of the process. I can't walk away because it looks hopeless. We've won way too many fights we weren't supposed to, and the goal is obviously more than worth it...

[welshTerrier2]

16. Taoism and Zen ??

am i to understand, your point about "not choosing is choosing" notwithstanding, that you would suggest a devotee of either religion should vote against their own beliefs for a "lesser of two evils" due to pragmatic political considerations?

[kevsand]

19. I would never make such a blanket generalization or assertion.

I'm just borrowing a thread of wisdom from the larger skein. Both worldviews correctly teach that not choosing is, in fact, a choice.

[welshTerrier2]

24. i appreciate that ...

the point i was making is that if one were to look at the broader teachings of Taoism and Zen, it would be hard to see how the idea of "going along with the lesser of the evils" would embody the wisdom of seeking one's "buddha nature" ...

it just struck me as odd to hear these religions mentioned in the context of perceived political pragmatism ... one might suggest that they would teach quite the opposite ... i have no disagreement at all with your assertion that both teach that not choosing is choosing ...

[geomon666]

20. Progressives should start their own party. It's long overdue.

Simply call it the Progressive Party of America. I'd sign up in a second.

[welshTerrier2]

22. just going along

i hope there can be an honest discussion in this thread without all the usual name-calling ... wouldn't it be nice, just for a change, if we could just share our thoughts without making personal attacks on those who disagree ...

so, in that spirit, here are my thoughts on the intra-party squabbling ...

first, do we all agree that every single Democrat, regardless of left, right or center, should have a very real opportunity to have their voice heard ... i would like to see reforms in the party that put much greater emphasis on making the party more democratic than it is ... does anyone have a problem with that?

second, there are many in the party who do not feel represented ... only as an example and not to argue the specific issue, i saw a poll taken last year that said 56% of Democrats think we should withdraw from Iraq even prior to "stabilizing" the country ... the point is NOT whether you agree or disagree with this majority ... the point is that most of our elected Democratic representatives do not agree with the majority in their own party ... is this acceptable? it's made worse by the fact that there is very little opportunity for most of us to speak with our representatives in regular, public forums ... perhaps if we could hear the details of their thinking, we might become more supportive ... perhaps if they could hear from many of us, they might become more supportive of how we see things ... the distance, especially with most Senators, between them and their constituencies is very unhealthy for democracy ... do you agree this situation needs to change?

third, absent improved dialog between constituents and their elected reps, deep differences fester ... that's where many are today ... many, and i include myself, do not believe the party represents us and we believe we are the majority especially on issues like Iraq ... again, the point isn't whether we are right or wrong, the point is that we feel unwelcomed in the party except, of course, for our campaign work, our campaign funds and our votes ... we do NOT feel our ideas are welcomed ...

so, what are we to do ... what i did last year was abandon my deepest beliefs to fight for Democrats ... i worked very hard for the Party last year and donated some serious money ... while i criticized Kerry intensely on DU (Iraq), i never did so when talking to undecided voters or republicans ... while I was only supporting Kerry as an ABB voter, I made forceful arguments in support of his candidacy when it counted ... i did not argue that i was only supporting Kerry because bush is hideous when speaking to uncommitted voters ...

but that was last year ... and what happened ?? did the Party show any appreciation for the support it received "from the left"? no ... they didn't ... was there a new unity formed so that those on "the left" would have a better opportunity to share their ideas and find some common ground and compromise ... no ... there wasn't ... and so what message did that support send? i'm afraid it did nothing but reinforce the idea that the left has nowhere else to go and that most of us, even if we complain, will ultimately just go along no matter what the direction of the party is ...

well, folks, let me say as clearly as i can, I AM DONE WITH THAT ... no matter what views are presented by those who are apparently more content with the party than i am, it does not make any sense to me to be asked to support candidates who don't agree with my views on major issues ... let's say that again ... it does not make any sense to me to be asked to support candidates who don't agree with my views on major issues ...

so, if you want to make arguments to me that i should support the ultimate Democratic nominee regardless of their views, take that into account ... tell me how i can make sense out of what you're saying ... because right now, it sounds like the height of madness to me ...

finally, and i want to be very clear on this point, this is not some kind of argument for purity or any of the other condescending terms used to suggest each Democrat does not have the right to determine whether a candidate does or doesn't represent their views ... this is not about purity ... i've said nothing about an unwillingness to be flexible or find some common ground ... when voters feel abandoned by their own party; when they feel the party doesn't represent them on key issues; when they feel they really don't have a say, i believe the party runs a risk by not reaching out to these voters ...

and something like 50% (is that about right?) of voting age Americans don't even vote ... so we not only have a problem with those Democrats who feel disenfranchised, we have evidence of tens of millions of others who apparently feel the same way ... demanding loyalty to the party, regardless of where it stands, is clearly not an effective political strategy ...

and it doesn't have to be this way ...

[justinsb]

25. Very well said!

I'd nominate it if it was it's own thread.

:toast:

[welshTerrier2]

27. thanks, justinsb ...

the rift in the party is really unfortunate but it's very real ...

i heard my Congressman speak last night ... he really is great and embodies the kind of communication i wish there were much more of ... he said that if this were Europe, the Democratic Party would probably be made up of something like 13 different parties ...

we have got to find a way to build unity in the party but i don't think we're doing very well ... i'll be working for and voting for my Democratic congressman next year, but i'll be supporting progressives from other parties if there is not a progressive Democrat running ...

let's hope progress can be made before the rift makes us pay a high price during an election ... if change is going to begin, it better begin soon ... things cannot continue as they are ...

[kevsand]

26. You're right, it doesn't.

The problems you cite are all very real, and all desperately in need of fixing. Some of those fixes will require substantial changes in the party. Only people actually in the party will be able to make those changes.

Third parties will certainly be able to have some successes in local elections in isolated instances, but I can't imagine that a third party will ever grow and sustain itself to the point where it will ever be a factor in most local elections from coast to coast.

What that means, and what several other posters in this thread have already indicated, is that the true long term benefit of a third party is to move one of the established parties. While third parties are obviously capable of this sort of impact, there still has to be some person or persons on the inside of the established party who are willing to take the challenge and respond positively to the stimulus.

In some ways, it comes down to a matter of what makes more sense: changing something directly or trying to influence it indirectly. Do we take back the Dem party and make proactive changes because its the right thing to do, or do we go our own way and hope that we hurt the party to the point where its leadership grudgingly throws us a few crumbs to stop the bleeding?

Maybe we do both at the same time. Maybe it'll require both. I'll be doing my best on the inside, and I'd love to have y'all with me, but I can certainly understand if folks don't have the stomach for it.

[justinsb]

28. I think this comes close to the point

If progressive candidates turn out to vote, consistently, but don't vote for Dems when they are not representative of our view and the Dem leadership sees a trend and progressive candiates tend to win and less conservative candidates tend to lose because of that margin - because of the progressive votes they lost, then perhaps there can be some real communication.

In other words, support candidates who represent progressive views, be they Dem or other.

[welshTerrier2]

30. i can be in two places at once ...

i spent many, many days in the land of Firesign Theatre ...

whether a third party could eventually become a real political force remains to be seen ... it is certainly fair to say that third parties might very well win some local elections ... and remember, there are candidates like Bernie Sanders who are extremely popular and are not necessarily aligned with either of the two major parties ...

anyway, i agree with your statement that "it will require both" ... that's exactly what i'm doing ... i am an elected member of my town's DTC ... i'm trying to "change things from the inside" ...

BUT, working for change does not necessitate that i vote for candidates who don't represent my views ... i can, indeed, do both ...

i am not "going third party" in the sense that i will work for and vote for a third party candidate when a progressive Democrat is running ... in fact, at least for now while i still have a tiny bit of hope remaining, i will stay in the Democratic Party ... but i'm afraid my stay will be short-lived ... if in 2008, all the Party offers are more war and occupation supporters, perhaps i will finally have to face the reality that the party has indeed "left me" ...

i don't take this decision lightly ... i've listened to those who say i should stay and fight for change ... and that's what i'm doing ... but it's also true that "you have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em" ... when hope is gone; i'm gone ... so the stay and fight message is a good one ... but things really do need to change ... if the party's power elite cannot be encouraged or forced to share power, then it's time to move on (no pun intended) ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Vote issues not party.

Politicians chase money and votes. The party will only move left if they can no longer rely on left wing votes and have to go after them by moving left.

I'm not at all interested in moving the Democratic Party to the left. I would certainly welcome it, but I'm a helluva lot more interested in moving the nation and the world to the left.

People seem to forget that democratic parties are supposed to be representative of the people that belong to them. They are, essentially, tools to advance ideals and programs. When they fail to do so, they are no longer doing what they're supposed to do.

In today's America, the 2 major parties represent politicians and the interests that supply them with money. Those interests are in actual control of the country. One only has to look at the deals cut between government and corporations to see who is really in charge.

Time for a new party? I'll settle for the Greens until they sell out on the issues.

[justinsb]

32. I'd even go so far as to say the two parties have become

corporations themselves. They have their own cultures, their own heirarchy etc., the product they sell is favours and influence and these get more expensive with every election. Like corporations, they would rather take a short term loss than give up their product entirely.

[IrateCitizen]

38. Herbert Marcuse said as much over 40 years ago...

... when he wrote The One-Dimensional Man. Politics has simply succumbed to the corporatist juggernaught like everything else in our modern, advanced capitalist society. It's not about issues, it's about marketing. Noam Chomsky summed it up aptly last fall when he said that our election campaigns are now run by the same people who are hired to market soap and toothpaste.

[CWebster]

35. Well, I might support Gore

I do believe he has seen the light. ;-)

Or, at the very least, is a decent man.