I've heard reports that over 15 per cent of public employees in Wisconsin voted Republican in the last election.
It sounds hard to believe, but not shocking. I had a Wisconsin protester visit my blog who berated me for having the temerity to ask where the Democratic voters were in that election. When he finally revealed he voted Democratic, he was still irate since it so displeased him to vote for the only party in the election where there was a chance his interests would be represented. He didn't have a clue I was on his side--utterly oblivious of his own arrogance.
I suppose you could make the case, as they did in the mainstream media that the voters were "angry" in the last election and that somehow explains the utter lack of reason. "Americans aren't getting what they want from either party," goes the drill--so what do they do--they take it out on the "system," refuse to vote, and consequently find themselves battling for rights gained over a half century ago by the generations that had no option except to fight.
It isn't just Wisconsin as anyone who pays even a minimal amount of attention knows. The so-called "liberal" electorate feel it's their sacred duty to withhold their vote more often than deliver it, especially if they're from the Vietnam generation or deeply influenced by it. They resent being questioned in the matter, hiding behind the collective attitude.
American fuax liberals align with their ideologies and "morality" more often than they do their genuine interests; and the conservatives keep walking away with the victory. It's a peculiar phenomenon rarely discussed. It doesn't play well in prime time to take the voter to task for their intransigence--rather than our political leaders and demagogues. They're the bad guys--not the poor confused souls who put them into office.
At the time of the 2004 Presidential election there were 72 million registered Democrats vs. 55 million registered Republicans--an increase in the Republican percentage from 2ooo, as incomprehensible as it sounds following Bush's first term. Yet they not only trounced the Dems in the last election despite a President who rescued them from the brink of disaster--but their influence is such that they dominate the government even when they're in the minority. More than that, they managed to re-elect a President who took the nation to war under false pretenses and whether or not it was even legitimate we may never know. That's quite an accomplishment.
Why does the pattern keep repeating itself? What attitudes and perspectives are there in the American electorate that prevent them from voting in their own best interests? How is it the middle class, the largest voting block, pays the most taxes given their income yet have to fight repeatedly for programs that serve them and their families?
I see one answer very clearly right on Open Salon. A week doesn't go by without at least two or three strongly worded posts denouncing the Democrats in one way or other for not delivering based on a "liberal" ideology. Obama doesn't need GOP enemies as long as he has them. If the midterms taught anything it's that he's already been abandoned by many, and they've made it clear again and again they aren't coming back. This, that, or the other decision, like the recent one in Guantanamo-- just go too far--he is no longer ideologically correct--it's time to look for his replacement.
I'll bet this post will come under harsh attack for my impertinence for pointing out they are the problem. An "intellectual" liberal, above the frey isn't a liberal at all--they are a cipher. If I was Obama, I'd be leaning right now too given their lack of loyalty. He clearly has to find a new center if he's going to be re-elected--aided not by faux liberals, but by the Republican's weakness--their own rapaciousness--which has also made itself more and more clear.
Will any of them "get it," that the way democracy works is by approximation for the most part--whereby voting for the most viable candidate who most represents our interests (not our ideologies) is the way to move the consensus--not staying home and sticking out their tongues at the "corrupt system," and "dirty politicians." It's immature and adolescent--the rejection of democracy rather than the practice of it.
Outside my window as I write this a line of marchers are shouting and waving their flags. (I live 32 blocks from the UN so this is a common occurrence.) I don't recognize their flags and can't make out their slogans. They're the perfect metaphor. The complaint of the ideologues is the leaders never listen if they don't believe their faith resolutely enough. They want everybody to waive their banner and nothing else will do--even if it means their own security and prosperity. The leaders see them out there yelling at the moon, but if they don't provide them with any real support--why should they let them have their way?
In the election of 1885 and 1893 Mark Twain broke from his fellow Connecticut Republicans to vote for Grover Cleveland. He became a "Mugwump," a traitor to his class. His reasons were simple: Cleveland was the "better man," and not a stooge for the monopolies. How much has changed and how little. I'm sure Cleveland didn't abide by every policy Twain thought he should have--but it was enough to know someone was in office who was up to the task and not blatantly an opportunist for the folks who write the biggest checks. Where are the new Mugwumps?
I think the time to fight for that perspective is now--not a month before the next election when all the stridency and whining has already done its damage, and the result is yet is another President from the reactionary right. Now.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Mark Bieter
Pensive Person
Brian Carter
Boomer Bob
Keka
Ranjani Iyer Mohanty
Salon.com
Comments
I couldn't follow at that, but I get that you vote Democratic because that's the best we can do right now in the real world rather than the dream world.
I agree with you. That's probably why we had so much fun in the old days during the campaign.
The biggest mistake Obama made during his first term was agreeing to the compromise health care legislation forced on him by moderate Democrats. The tepid result was a law that does little good, and one that no one likes. He would have been better losing the fight than accepting the compromised result. No Republicans supported it, even though it is close to what Republicans once advocated, and almost no Democrats are enthusiastic about it. The result: Republicans are energized and the progressives that put Obama in office are disgusted.
Americans like a winner, regardless of ideology, not a mealy-mouthed centrist who goes with the current rather than create the current. That's not to say that compromise should be considered a bad word, but sometimes you have to accept a lost battle in order to win the war. During Obama's first term, he won some shitty little battles, but strategically, he lost.
Still, he's better than the Republican alternative, and progressives and moderates both should be cognizant of that fact, or America will continue its rapid descent into plutocracy reminiscent of the situation of 100 years ago.
Yes, but Obama got a hell of a lot further than Clinton, and now that it's on the books and he or another Dem is in power they can veto the backlash.
The wonder is that he even attempted the legislation during his first term since the controversy alone has cost him. I personally think what will happen is that the legislation as it stands is not workable, the private carriers will blow it, and the government will have to take it over.
It is a perfect example of the "approximation" which is how democratic government works--here and everyplace else. Thanks for stopping by. I always appreciate your input.
Americans aren't stupid, nor do they pay much attention to those who discuss politics, be they faux or authentic. The "faux liberals" don't have the numbers to swing any federal election, nor do they have any influence among that vastly larger number of possible Democratic voters -- who don't hear a word the "faux liberals" say.
So it's down to Obama, our passive-aggressive seat warmer, to bring the votes. He has the bullhorn, not the "faux liberals." I won't repeat procopius, but that's a decent rendition of complaint. Obama is the one who brought you a GOP Congress. Obama is why this country keeps being sucked down a Rwing drain.
He. Doesn't. Offer. A. Substantial. Alternative. (see also: how the Dems used to win with far less campaign funding than the GOP)
Evidently, the wimpy, reactive "but they're worse!" campaign theme just ain't workin'.
He could have prevented this with one simple concept -- represent the people when dealing with the insurance companies and Wall Street banks...not, as he has done...the other way around.
Simple.
It's so simple and truthful you have to wonder why he hasn't even made the weakest attempt to give a hint to make a move that might be construed as representing the people. Answer: He's not on our (the majority of Americans) side. He's a New Democrat -- a donkey stuffed inside an elephant and served at a Chamber of Commerce banquet.
And that, ben, is why those people who don't pay a damn bit of attention to your 'faux liberals" weren't inspired to vote.
They wanted FDR, they got FD-Aren't.
PS-- Full Disclosure: I'm an authentic liberal.
2000 seems like yesterday- I was in Berkeley in a shouting, no, a screaming match with idiot Naderites out "campaigning" for the King of Cars under the imbecilic and entirely credulous notion that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Gore and Bush ... I don't suffer fools well and despite reaching record decibels, I mean, these losers wanted me to give Nader money!!!!, I finally gave up and headed to the vegan restaurant to drown my sorrows.
Ben, you are dead right. I am already debating here on OS on the absurd notion Obama should court the left- thus throwing away his re-election and 2nd term where he can pursue his agenda without worrying about votes anymore ... he is a brilliant genius, they are, not, idiot savants.
TRUTH TOLD HERE BROTHER
I first started to use the term "faux liberals" when I was a regular commenter on Salon during the last presidential election and was amazed how quickly it was picked up. Those least able to do so were like Mr. O'Rourk--so bitter they can't for a moment consider an idea that doesn't play into their ideology.
It's actually a story that goes back to the beginning of the country and how collective opinion is reached in a democracy. If the Republican Party was reduced to only having ten per cent of the elected positions in this country, which may be all they deserve given who benefits from the policies, and the rest were all Dems in a matter of months they would be divided in a "conservative" and "liberal" wing and the same battles would be fought under new banners.
The question to me, now that the actual views of Americans can be expressed on sites like this, and debated among ourselves and not "professionals," is how often folks like O'Rourk contribute to the problems by refusing to take political reality in the country seriously due to their own closed mindedness. If Dems had a majority in the states where "labor" i.e. the middle class is currently under attack, it wouldn't be happening and they would have to look to other alternatives to keeping the govt. both there and in Washington solvent.
A recent debate on cable where they argued whether the two party system should be "replaced" by more parties was instructive. After the debate, the vast majority of the audience opted for the two party system.
I'm especially gratified by the level of this discussion. See: it is possible to disagree and remain civil! Thanks to all. Oahosurfer got what I was saying on the most intuitive level. I never for a moment thought I'd become Obama's "interpreter" but the constant badgering he receives from "faux liberals" merits his defence. God know who the Republicans are going to put up against him next, but he's going to need every true liberal to support him or the whole country will turn into Wisconsin.
Please, if you have no response to my post, and no interest but carrying on your childish drama here, go away. A right wing ideologue is little different than a left wing ideologue in my view. You are the opposite sides of the same coin, and an inability or incapacity to see or understand anything that doesn't fit your boxes means you have little to add if anything. Find someplace else to troll.
I imagine someday by accident you will say something I can understand based on sheer statistical probabilities given that we speak the same or nearly the same language. Until that day of course I wish you well and a happy spring. Clap, clap.
That's not what I'm saying. The problem is more that Republican's, though a minority both in practice (voters) and in terms of who their policies serve ARE LOYAL, and the Democrat's, particularly the "liberal" wing are not. How else is the anomaly explained, especially when there is no third party candidate in the mix pulling in the disenfranchised?
Here is another interesting fact: I'll bet if I told you the country that has the highest percentage of voter participation you wouldn't believe it, nor the fact that it has the most active parties.
Ready: Italy.
I'll grant you the Republican Party stinks to high heaven as a choice for the electorate most of the time too...but the Democrats don't offer a viable alternative when they rely just as heavily on emotion and rhetoric to draw voters instead of taking an honest look at where we are financially.
I agree with "liberals" we need to figure out ways to take care of those in need, and to provide health care for all. I also agree with policies that address climate change, and that we must make drastic cuts to the military-industrial complex...but where the Democrats lose me is in how they choose to address these issues - #1 they say things that prove economically to be untrue to energize their base, and #2 they subsequently act contrary to what they've said to their base and still contrary to economic reality.
It seems the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin that sits in the confused center. I can't stand the rhetoric that accompanies fights that really can be boiled down to finances, and two parties that talk from the left and right, yet act from the middle, further dividing and conquering the electorate while our money goes down the toilet.
I cite the budget fights in Wisconsin as an example. I don't like Governor Walker's party, but I am glad given how broke the country is, that he was able to perhaps take a step toward ending collective bargaining for public workers in his state. I feel that move could cascade across the country, and instead of overpaying civil servants we can figure out ways to divert that money to those who need it most.
While you might not enjoy my analysis, it's far more realistic than yours. Setting aside that you misuse "liberal," the idea that the attitude of some "liberals" is what cost the Dems the House (and some governorships) is completely void of realpolitik. Those "faux liberals" went to the polls and voted Dem. They're interested in politics.
The majority of Americans that Obama has disappointed (not counting the auto-disappointed Rwing) don't do so out of "ideology." They see the results for what they are and, more importantly -- aren't. They see a crumbling economy but don't hear Obama expressing their fears or taking their side. It's that simple. Is that what "pragmatic" means?
Also, while my response was pointed, it wasn't insulting. The thrust of your argument is wrongheaded, and I pointed out why. You attack 'faux liberals" but for some reason that isn't an insult until it becomes reciprocal.
Notice how your analysis compliments Obama's attacks on "the left/progressives, etc." He does that because of a political calculation that substitutes addressing the majority's desire for the real change he hasn't brought or advocated for the ethereal concept of "centrism." You, on the other hand, apparently believe the ruse is reality.
When I say authentic liberal, that means I have some grasp of the scope and intent of the philosophy. I do not have an "ideology."
You, however, with your expressed limited understanding of the word, are the one using it in ideological terms. You seem to confuse ideology with opposition to your opinion and Obama's ineffective leadership.
I contribute to the problem? Ben, you don't even know nor can you acknowledge the real problem. Thinking that if the "faux liberals" would change their attitude it would create a positive affect that would translate into electoral victory is purely magical thinking.
What you really did with this post is to defend Obama by taking the truthful, factual and real political responsibility away from him and placing the blame on those who had nothing...nothing...to do with the midterm losses. Your "political reality" is only lacking the reality part.
Your opinion has no more sway upon the inattentive masses than mine, but if you want to blame a way of thinking for the rapid demise of what should have been a long Democratic ride on the Obama train...look no further than your accommodation and defense of a Party and "leader" who have all but totally abandoned the Democratic principles that kept the Party in effective and almost eternal power by standing for the working class majority. Keep in mind that back when the Dems used telethons to cover campaign debts, they regularly kept control of Congress...now that they compete with the GOP for corporate cash, they routinely lose.
As for you assigning me the label of 'far left ideologue," I can only chuckle and shake my head. The last thing you should want to do is to get into a conversation about liberal philosophy with me. Despite your use of the word, you evidently don't have a clue to what it actually means.
Intellectually, you're do nothing more than flailing about, looking for somebody to blame.
The "centrist" shtick is a cheap way to fool yourself into thinking you're a master of reason, but it's only an affectation. There are only two types who believe that the concept of a "center" is something besides a vague political distraction -- those who don't know much about politics...
...and those who don't know much but think they do.
Frequently in these political discussions I end up saying that. As Churchill said of the parliamentary system, it's the worst system of government....except for all the others. Its advantage is that party members have to stick together. Anyone who doesn't is kicked out of the party (or leaves). When a party is cohesive, and its leader is the head of government, THINGS GET DONE. How can you expect anything but chaos when the party of the head of govt and of the majority are not the same?! But you don't even really have parties the way parliamentary systems do. Your American system is one of every-legislator-his-or-her-own-individual-party, not answerable to the party leader or to the party as a whole, but, and this is very bad, answerable to donors. Legalized bribery! Ech. What do you expect?
I cited two examples of very majority American sentiment.
Healthcare, where a wide majority has long expressed support for something like Medicare for all. Despite the popular support, and despite his promises to address that, Obama rejected it. Not only rejected it, but made a sloppy hash out of, in the end, forcing people to buy insurance from the very industry that most Americans--again a wide majority-- blame the most for HC costs.
The second whopping majority sentiment is economy/jobs. Like healthcare, most Americans would like to see direct government action and do not at all reject the proper response, which is spending into the economy to create jobs. Instead, Obama offers "somewhere in the future" platitudes, and then sucks up to the Republican/wealth class purely ideological position of austerity and cutting spending.
Pointing these facts out makes me a "far left ideologue."
Obama didn't lose the House and those Governorships because of the "faux liberals." He lost them because he refuses to address popular hopes and legitimate fears. I say this again because reality doesn't seem to be a welcomed guest here.
Care to explain why you see a very much majority position as 'far left?"
That was rhetorical. Obviously you're upset because you posted something that shows you don't know politics well enough, and have fallen prey to the idea the daily grind of political opinion represents the whole of American politics. That's a common error, but still an error.
While it is difficult for some to separate their opinion from their person, I didn't personalize anything. It's your opinion, and while I'm sure you're a fine person, your opinion is lacking a connection to political reality. Rather than to rebut, you chose to whine. You made it personal, ben, by reacting as if it was personal. I guess that's a natural condition if you don't have a countering argument for something you obviously didn't think through well enough before you posted. If you could counter my assertions, I'm guessing you would have countered my assertions. Labeling them as 'left ideology," in case you missed it, isn't a rebuttal.
I find this funny:
"You've convinced me there's no room for a discussion with you."
You didn't discuss anything. You didn't defend your position.
You whined, flopped, labeled and now sound a "pity me" retreat.
I'll leave you and Joisey to lick your self inflicted wounds, and figure out why an overwhelming majority of Americans are Far Leftist Ideologues.
Be sure to let us know when you figure it out.
My god man you're thick. Why go to all that trouble writing when all you apparently want to do is insult people. Why waste the time? What do you expect to accomplish? It's adolescent. Go away.
interesting observation.