Since the Republican blowout in the midterm elections, we’ve repeatedly heard the question, “What should Democrats do now?” I think there is one very important lesson from the past two election cycles that is being missed and will continue to be missed. Democrats must decide who they are. Jim Dean of Democracy for America put it this way the day after the elections:
“The biggest lesson from last night is actually pretty simple. For Democrats to win in the future, they need to fight for the people they represent and stop cutting deals to water down reform with the same corporate interests who will turn around and spend unlimited amounts of money to defeat Democrats year after year.”
It really is not a difficult formula to understand; when hired to do a job, you either do the job or lose the job. Unfortunately, individuals that self-identify as "Democrats" comprise a diverse, splintered, complicated faction and there are at least three primary groups of Democrats that must decide who they are.
Group 1
The most important group, in my view, is comprised of “progressives” who think their interests are served by the current Democrat Party.
The complexity and intellectual integrity of thought that leads people to be progressives is, unfortunately, part of their problem in determining, as a collective, who they are. Progressives are by nature more inclusive and accepting of others and “The Other” than conservatives, and this inclusive perspective sometimes makes it difficult to recognize the enemy as an enemy. As a result, the fact that many, if not most, congressional Democrats do not represent them becomes obscured by the fact that our current electoral system is stacked against the general public in favor of the power elite.
The system favors an elite power class, thereby leaving progressive voters virtually always restricted to voting for the lesser of two conservatives because there is no incentive for politicians to upset the status quo. The ability to run for office is determined by an individual’s access to wealth and privilege clearly exposing this favoritism. Another even clearer indicator is the reaction from many fellow congressional Democrats to their truly more progressive “colleagues” in Congress. Let’s just say their reaction is not entirely favorable. Could it be because those particular colleagues threaten the status quo?
Group 2
Another group is comprised of politicians who label themselves Democrats and claim they represent progressives while promoting conservative/corporate interests. This group of politicians claims to be “socially progressive and fiscally conservative”. What that means, of course, is that they support socially progressive policy but are reluctant to support such policy monetarily. Unfortunately, for progressives who support these politicians, there are socially progressive policies that require monetary expenditures.
The Blue Dog Coalition is a solid representative sample of these Democrats and the damage done through their indecision, as well as the indecision of voters who supported them in the first place, is now clearly apparent after the 2010 mid-term elections. They have been the major congressional obstacle to progressive social policy and improvements by being, in essence, Republicans/conservatives and, now, many of them have been swept from office by Republican candidates in their districts. These conservatives who self-labeled themselves as Democrats capitalized on the misconception by progressive voters that being labeled a Democrat made those politicians progressives, thereby allowing the enemy to become more solidly entrenched in Congress.
Interestingly, the Blue Dogs are more honest than many of the Democrats in Congress who are just as conservative, or at least just as unwilling to upset the status quo, but who simply deny it completely. The difference is a result of deceptive self-promotion in their political quest to be elected, not to serve the public. With so much of the electorate being unclear about the actions of these politicians, the label becomes a determining factor enlisted by many progressives who vote largely, or solely, based on that label.
On the surface it appears that these politicians have decided who they are. Yet their pandering often leads to their defeat. Their actions on one hand contradict what their label suggests to voters on the other hand and their supporters become disillusioned, disinterested and non-participatory in the voting process (which is not to say there are not other reasons for being disillusioned, disinterested and non-participatory), but the end result, regardless, is that these politicians end up with no clear support, so they lose and so do those who once supported them.
Group 3
Another group is comprised of Democrat voters who consider themselves progressives but who support Blue Dogs/conservative Democrats with full knowledge of the fiscal conservatism those politicians advocate. This group is perhaps more complicated to understand because they are people who recognize the need for progressive social policy and improvement but believe such social improvement can be attained through fiscal conservatism. Improvements require investment, a point that is not lost on these individuals. What is lost on them is the concept of value not related to dollars in the kitty. They understand that they improve their own lives when they buy something like, say, a more comfortable car. That car has no monetary ROI (return on investment), as its value diminishes substantially the moment they drive it off the sales lot, but it makes LIFE more pleasant, better. The problem is that they are not willing to allow that concept to transcend their personal life to American society at large. In this sense, they are essentially Republicans/conservatives and so they seek out representatives who suggest that doing improvement on the cheap with no sacrifice is a workable concept.
Perhaps groups two and three are somewhat aligned, as each pays lip service to social progressiveness, yet each is largely seduced by a reassuring lie. There is a tendency on their part to attach monetary value to concepts that have no direct monetary value, aside from how long-term costs may be reduced through betterment of societal conditions for all. Attachment to monetary excuses for not undertaking complicated social improvement programs is short-sighted and reveals a narrow worldview based on a solely-monetary value system, immediate gratification, and quick profits. It is an approach to situational analysis that eliminates more complex computations based on a larger context of social ills that cost society monetarily AND culturally.
Some major examples of areas that could benefit from more progressive social improvement are education, law enforcement and healthcare. Such improvements create a healthier social environment, but those improvements cannot be achieved without financial investment to get to that point, and the ROI is not immediately measurable. Yet every thorough analysis reveals the long-term benefits on an individual and societal basis. Often, opposition to such policies is based on greed. There is not much we can do about eliminating human characteristics like greed, but we can do much about alleviating aspects of human need, and actions and behaviors resulting from individual need are often desperate and detrimental to society.
So what is the solvable problem in all of this? That problem is the electoral system. The system was constructed by an elite power class to protect their wealth and power. The system is a faux democracy designed to appease the public while keeping public participation in decision-making at a minimum. And the wealth of the power elite is a tremendous sword wielded against average Americans. Across the Internet there are countless blogs dedicated to exposing the propaganda of major communications networks, which are now, by the way, hard at work in efforts to restrict the openness of the same Internet. Those communications networks are tools of the elite power class.
I recently ran across a clear and incisive description of the problem in Noam Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. Chomsky presents this description of the problem, which started becoming evident during the pre-FDR period when Woodrow Wilson was president.
Controlling the general population has always been a dominant concern of power and privilege, particularly since the first modern democratic revolution in seventeenth-century England. […] At home, it is necessary to safeguard a system of elite decision-making and public ratification – “polyarchy” in the terminology of political science – not democracy.
[…] By Wilson’s day it was widely recognized by elite sectors in the U.S. and Britain that within their societies, coercion was a tool of diminishing utility, and that it would be necessary to devise new means to tame the beast, primarily through control of opinion and attitude. Huge industries have since developed devoted to these ends.
Wilson’s own view was that an elite of gentlemen with “elevated ideals” must be empowered to preserve “stability and righteousness.” Leading public intellectuals agreed. ”The public must be put in its place,” Walter Lippman declared in his progressive essays on democracy. That goal could be achieved in part though “the manufacture of consent,” a “self-conscious art and regular organ of popular government.” This “revolution” in the “practice of democracy” should enable a “specialized class” to manage the “common interests” that “very largely elude public opinion entirely.” In essence, the Leninist ideal. Lippman had observed the revolution in the practice of democracy firsthand as a member of Wilson’s Committee on Public Information, which was established to coordinate wartime propaganda and achieved great success in whipping the population into war fever.
The “responsible men” who are the proper decision-makers, Lippman continued, must “live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.” These “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” are to be “spectators,” not “participants.” The herd does have a “function”: to trample periodically in support of one or another element of the leadership class in an election. Unstated is that the responsible men gain status not by virtue of any special talent or knowledge but by willing subordination to the systems of actual power and loyalty to their operative principles – crucially, that basic decisions over social and economic life are to be kept within institutions with top-down authoritarian control, while the participation of the beast is to be limited to a diminished public arena.
Just how diminished the public arena should be is a matter of debate. Neoliberal initiatives of the past thirty years have been designed to restrict it, leaving basic decision-making within largely unaccountable private tyrannies, linked closely to one another and to a few powerful states. Democracy can then survive, but in a sharply reduced form. […] “Through tacit agreement the two parties approach the contest for the presidency [as] political kabuki [in which] the players know their roles and everyone sticks to the script,” “striking poses” that cannot be taken seriously.
The "systems of actual power" and "private tyrannies" to which Chomsky refers are wealthy elites and corporations. The problem is the system. Until that problem is addressed, nothing will change in any substantial way. Democrats refused to hold the criminals of the Bush regime accountable. Even now, as Bush promotes a book in which he admits his crimes openly, no action is taken to hold hem and his accomplices accountable.
A majority of Americans supported universal healthcare coverage. Democrats refused to make a firm stand on healthcare reform, ultimately acquiring a bill that does little to address the most significant needs, and most of the changes it offers don’t take effect until years from now. In the meantime, we now have a congress coming in with the stated aim of repealing that healthcare bill, a goal that will most likely fail, but which will bring about every effort by this new congress to block funding for the bill and gut what little help that healthcare bill offers before it even takes effect. How the healthcare bill fares through those efforts is yet to be seen, but the fact that we are facing this dilemma indicates the problem; the system.
Now there is much talk of congressional Democrats supporting extending the Bush tax cuts instead of reaping that revenue to start paying down the Bush deficits, the very deficits being used as an excuse to cut or eliminate needed services. Consider the following:
Pop quiz: Which of the following will make up a majority of the deficit in the next decade?
A) Social Security
B) Medicare
C) The National Park Service
D) PBS
E) George Bush's tax cuts
Give up? The answer is E -- George Bush's tax cuts.
But this week the co-chairs of the so-called "Deficit Commission" came out with their recommendations on how to fix the deficit. Do you know what their answer was? They said they wanted to cut A, B, C and D.
That's right -- the co-chairs of the Deficit Commission said that they wanted to cut Social Security, Medicare, the National Park Service, PBS and a whole lot more. But they're OK with leaving George Bush's tax cuts in place even though those tax cuts are projected to make up over half of the deficit over the next 10 years. (from an email from Democracy for America)
The "Deficit Commission" doesn't even suggest the single most effective action that could be taken. The power elites are the wealthy and the corporate entities – "the systems of actual power" – that control the flow of information and decision-making institutions. The “leadership class” – the power elite – has prevailed.
To demonstrate how convoluted some may become, I recently read a blog by a self-labeled progressive (he actually used the word radical) who advocated the Democrats bring in more Blue Dogs as a way to attract conservatives to the party. How bringing more conservatives into Congress under the Democrat banner would serve a progressive agenda in Congress is a mystery that was never addressed; his stated goal was primarily to diminish the Republican Party. But one is left to wonder where the advantage lies in doing that if the Dems become the Republican Party in disguise. He said he wanted to “kill a snake” which caused me to wonder, “How do you kill a snake by becoming the snake?”
When I say, “DEMOCRATS, decide who you are,” I refer primarily to those progressive voters who consider themselves Democrats without recognizing that the Democrat Party does not represent them, we do not reside in a true democracy, and the system must change. Looking across the board at all the major problems we currently face, I see none from which the current members of government can benefit by changing the status quo; the system is currently structured in such a way to support that premise. Obama campaigned on a fairly progressive platform and then quickly abandoned that platform once he took office, yet the likelihood that he would do exactly that was readily apparent before he was elected. Progressives, abandon the reassuring lie.
PROGRESSIVES, decide who YOU are.
Are you Democrats or Progressives?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
"The herd does have a “function”: to trample periodically in support of one or another element of the leadership class in an election."
I don't always see eye to eye with Chomsky, but he nailed it with that one. In a two-party system wherein the two parties are mirror images of each other, the only role of the people is to give a facade of popular legitimacy to one of the only two available choices. Under those conditions, elections do not a democracy make.
The 'two party system' is no more than a passion play for our moronic inhabitants... theater, a distraction. Sad part is the majority could not care less. We (as a whole) deserve the huge red, white and blue non-lubricated cock in the ass that they are preparing for delivery as we speak (type).
Great post Rick!
Thing is, just as "big armies" are a thing of the past and are replaced with new-age, small, limber forces, same applies to politics. The Big-Tent approach of the Democratic Party simply doesn't work. We can't apply to all these different liberal groups at the same time.
We need to focus on 1 or 2 basic liberal ideas (I say working/middle class justice and the environment), and hammer away at this to the exclusion of all else.
At the end of the day, all can agree with these. But we can't go out of our way to placate every various interest group, identity group, special faction and sexy new issue of the day (like bullying, which is the new stupid fad).
We need DISCIPLINE, like the Bolsheviks of old...
Yep, two conservative parties seems an obviously pointless system where elections are concerned. It might worth noting that Chomsky was essentially reporting the perspective of some of the legal scholars of a certain time period. So, it’s not like this is an unknown.
trig,
Your colorful metaphor prompted a good laugh. The system is set up to promote the lack of interest to which you refer.
dmalrajabi,
Thanks for reading and commenting. Political expediency wins the day at the expense of those who should be served.
Tom,
I never thought you had a difficult time discerning who the enemy is. Clearly, those with an “R” next to their name fall into that category in Congress. Unfortunately, there are many with a “D” next to their name who fall into the same category.
Rw005g,
I think you hit on an important point that offers one strategy that might help; narrowing the scope of policy focus. But, as I point out, such limitations are a bit antithetical to liberals. But I think your point is a good one.
"Hello," she lied,
I’m always curious about people’s screen names. “Circular firing squads” is a phrase I’m not familiar with in this context. Am I correct in thinking it refers to shooting ourselves? If so, then I might ask you to expand on exactly WHO is shooting themselves.
I've been telling the left that the Republicans aren't their problem, the Democrats are, for some time. It's the Democratic Party's refusal to do what even a clear majority of Americans want done that increases the opportunity for the Republicans to advance their vile and anti-American form of toxic populism.
I know why the Party does what it does, and the mostly flimsy reasoning behind it. I guess I should crank out a post describing that.
I did a post a while back about Public Option, the newest term for the single payer system most Americans want. I pointed out the left/Progressive/whatever you want to call it people should stand firm, and be prepared to walk away from the Party if there wasn't something resembling what they want. Of course, Obama's Max Baucus (D-Wellpoint) "Obamacare" plan did end up making the middle walk away a couple of weeks ago, so I thank those few million voters for helping me make my point.
I'm not in the least impressed with Obama. Notice how his "Just say no to top end tax cuts" has become "I stand firm that the top end cuts shouldn't be increased 'permanently'...."
He's a wimp and a weasel, and not worth anyone's admiration....except the chuckling morons over at the RNC.
“…Republicans aren't their problem, the Democrats are …”
I’ve expressed the same point in many conversations I’ve had in person and online, but I consistently run into the argument that if we “walk away from the Party” we’ll end up like we did in this past election. Obviously, that’s a truism. But people who make that argument miss an even more obvious point – by not walking away, thereby creating a situation that forces change, we support the status quo, which obviously reaps the status quo.
Obama’s appeals for “change” rang hollow for me because he had shown his loyalties BEFORE he was elected. People often say the voted for change. They seem to not recognize that real change usually involves some painful adjustments.
Like you, when the congressional Dems so quickly abandoned their fight for single-payer, they lost me completely. But there seem to be many who are still dedicated to the status quo. I don’t get it.
As for your not being impressed with Obama, neither am I. His actions since taking office must be seen as one of the greatest disappointments in the history of American politics. Can we imagine what this world would be like if FDR had behaved similarly? And I have to ask, “How could a man as intelligent as Obama seems not recognize the lesson that FDR taught us?”
They backed off doing it before the election because the Senate Dems didn't see it as a *Dem favoring issue in general*
I am not giving up on the Dem Party...I did that some years ago. Obama didn't surprise me at all.
In my Superdem post I point out that Obama seems to think he was dropped in the middle of Clinton's economy --1998 -- instead of Hoover's 1932 one. I have also described his "leadership" as being nothing more than dialing up the DLC for an order of Clinton New Democrat take-out.
I even have a ditty (hope you don't mind) that we can sing in our Hoovervilles while we're waiting for soup.
Oh! Obama
We cheered all night the day you won
With hope that change was neigh
Two years in
We're burned again
Obama won't you try?
Oh Obama, why won't you try for me?
When we needed FDR we got rerun DLC...
I mentioned the two-party issue, but while we're solving the nation's problems, so to speak, we need to do away with the electoral college, an inherently undemocratic device if ever there was one. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, but polls indicate a majority of American citizens would favor such an amendment.
I'll bring my guitar and try to get my voice in shape.
nana,
The elctoral college is precisely one of the things that needs to go - it never served the general welfare but was designed to preserve the power elite's hold on decision-making.
you vote for the candidates on offer, and then go home. your opinions on the fine details of managing the nation are not solicited.
consequently, candidates and officeholders are free to take what steps they feel best for the nation, right after they take care of their supporters, and maximize their chances of remaining in the seats of power.
in short, your opinion doesn't matter in the running of the nation, and very possibly doesn't matter in getting re-elected, either. they are, after all, professionals in getting elected. they may know what they are doing in that regard, if no other.
enjoy yourself, with shaking your [verbal] fist, but you are the dust under the chariot wheels of your masters.
“a pig in mud” seems an apt analogy.
al, I have to think that Cathy’s mud is comprised of the dust to which you refer.
Thanks to both for stopping by.
I also think people can be in Group 3--that is socially liberal but fiscally conservative--for reasons other than selfishness. Listening to economists, a politically independent group as a rule, can persuade one to believe that some conservative fiscal policies are best for everyone, including the poor. Again, not saying I agree necessarily, just throwing that out there. I think it's hard for educated liberals to simply toss out the science of economics when they are so inclined to hold up the scientific method, peer-reviewed work, field expertise, and scientific thinking in general. Many economists are a weird mix of conservative and liberal policy.
Anyway, I think much of your description is dead on, most particularly when you describe the complexity and variety of progressive values and personalities. I agree with you that it's the nature of the beast, in a way, that prevents us from coalescing in the easy way that conservatives seem able to, sticking to simple messages and bringing down the house. So true.
In listening to Glenn Greenwald and Lawrence O'Donnell debate this issue of "What next?" for Dems, it was hard for me not to see both sides. I'm such a frigging liberal that way. :)
Thanks for stopping by. Let me start by saying I hope you’re wrong about Kucinich because he’s one of the few in the Democrat Party that represents progressive ideals.
You have referenced the concept of “pragmatism” and stated, “I think there are always at least two levels going on.”
I assume the “two levels” to which you refer are; 1) what a person knows they want to do, and 2) what they are allowed to do based on the choices offered to them by the powers-that-be, a.k.a. voting the lesser of two evils.
Pragmatism is, I think, essentially defined by results achieved via particular actions. So, acting in such a way as to sustain the status quo would be pragmatic only if the goal is to sustain the status quo. If one believes change is needed, then pragmatism would suggest acting in such manner as would refute the status quo.
It seems to me that in the current political landscape, the use of the word pragmatism is really used as justification for fearfully supporting the status quo. You say you voted for Nader, for which I commend you, but I know, as I’m sure you do too, from conversations I’ve had with others that many people who wanted to vote Nader did not because they were afraid not enough other people would, and so a vote for Nader was seen as increasing the likelihood of a Republican/conservative winning.
So, I guess what I’m saying is that this brand of “pragmatism” to which you refer here, which is a common reference, is perhaps not really all that pragmatic in reality of its results and effects. Pragmatism within the political sphere would preclude the selling out of intended goals, which is what we’ve seen repeatedly in spite of what so many have determined is “pragmatism”. Might we consider the disastrous results of the recent mid-terms as the effect of such pragmatism?
I am fond of the analogy that relates the substance of our two major political parties to that of opposing cheerleading squads at a football game. Neither have the long-term interests of anything at heart.
Their activities between games are confined to practice on their cheers, to developing their forthcoming team support strategy, and to barking out trash talk regarding their opposition. During contests, both root for the members of their own teams, boo the members of the opposing teams, advocate for control, and seek to oppose the agenda of the other side. Both have, as their single, most important, objective, a larger number on their side of the scoreboard than the opposition has on theirs at the end of each contest.
In these senses, the Democratic Party is unworthy of your thoughts. It’s like depositing the ultimate destiny of the NFL into the jurisdiction of Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad.
Just to be clear, I wouldn’t wish to deposit the ultimate destiny of America in the hands of today’s Republican party either. All of these entities may have platforms that claim that they desire world peace, for example; but that’s not for what they work and it’s not for what they are paid.
With all due respect, it would be nice to see your well-considered thoughts divorced from such partisanship. Tying them to our empty-headed political parties leads to such presumptions that all Rs are your enemy.
Trust me, when you objectively define the impending crises in America, then you will likely find as many Rs agreeing with you as Ds. Propose common sense solutions to these well-defined problems; and, again, people, regardless of their affiliations, will rally behind your thoughts, and not your political party.
It’s always tempting to associate oneself with a mob. It’s always tempting to believe that if one’s philosophy can be imposed upon an existing, unified, political structure that such leverage will drive us more quickly to your vision of Nirvana.
But you, yourself, have argued against this. The Democrats aren’t unified. Here’s a secret: neither are the Republicans.
Truthfully, I believe that you know all of this. One of the best phrases in your post is, “. . . . you either do the job or lose the job.” That is patently true, for both parties; or, put more in the sense of this comment, for any elected representative.
Chris
A third party and other systemic aspects like getting the corporate money out of the elections and making every vote count.
Thanks for stopping by. My primary message here is precisely what you've presented -- that the partisan concept is not serving our needs and it must change if we are to move forward. But so many vote largely based on the Dem or Rep lable instead of on issues and actions.
What's odd to me is that you seem to think the public doesn't know it's doomed to just be spectators. But the voting behavior I describe suggests to me that they are keenly aware, and that they're voting not on the basis of some big agenda, but something small that they think the system will allow them to have.
Perhaps the reassuring lie is that anything people can do will matter. I heard it suggested by a caller on talk radio somewhere that we replace voting booths with wishing wells, that they are cheaper and just as effective. It's not that I disagree with your quest, actually, but something about your analysis makes it seem like the voters, in the end, are being irrational. I don't think they are. I think the media is allowing the message to be distorted, but if you assume voters don't have a lot of time to check the facts and that things that are said a lot and not refuted by the other side might be true, it's easy to see why they vote based on incorrect facts.
On Bill Maher this last week, I recall someone noting that if the Democrats did some great things but don't talk about them (and they did some things that, if not objectively great, were much greater than they talked about), then it's the Democrats' unwillingness to bring it up for discussion that shows a sense of shame that the voters can smell a mile away, even with the Republicans saying nothing. The problem isn't with the voters, it's with the Democratic leadership and with the media. The voters play their part, but they'd do it more competently if they got competent leadership, and competent independent news and analysis. Without reliable news, the voters have nothing useful to judge. Most of them can't be bothered to follow news 24/7 to see if what's being said is true or not, so it matters a lot what they are being fed at those times they look in.
Thanks for you energetic response. Much of what you’ve written here seems contentious as if you are disagreeing with me, yet most of your points either agree with me or address something I did not say. Essentially, we are mostly in agreement. In general terms, one mistake your comment fosters is the suggestion that I refer to all voters instead of to certain groups of voters.
I know there are people who are merely voting the lesser of two evils. I haven’t missed that or neglected that. But there are many people who vote simply based on the labels, and this is really what I’m looking at here. As for what is rational or irrational, the main thing I see is that voting on that basis (labels), or on the basis of fear, is irrational regardless. For instance, in my state election for U.S Senator, I had a choice of a Republican or a Democrat, both of whom essentially supported the same basic conservative ideologies. A system that presents only that kind of choice is definitely not in our best interests and certainly won’t move us away from the problems of stagnation we currently face, which what you and I have both said here.
You write, “What's odd to me is that you seem to think the public doesn't know it's doomed to just be spectators.”
My premise could only seem “odd” if you know nobody who doesn’t realize they are doomed to just being spectators; I know many of these people, as I am around them regularly in the workplace, at the grocery store, and most other public places. If everybody you know is keenly aware of this, then you move in more enlightened circles that I. That must be nice for you. But I am addressing those who are not keenly aware of this.
You write, “Perhaps the reassuring lie is that anything people can do will matter.”
On this point, considering how we have discussed these matters, I think you must know that I agree 100%. But there are other reassuring lies, too, like the lie people tell themselves when they believe the Democrat Party supports a progressive agenda.
Your perception that I think voters are being irrational is accurate, but I think there are some who are and some who aren’t; that judgment relies on what they seek.
You write, “I think the media is allowing the message to be distorted, but if you assume voters don't have a lot of time to check the facts and that things that are said a lot and not refuted by the other side might be true, it's easy to see why they vote based on incorrect facts.”
Again, we agree and I think I addressed this point adequately in my essay. But I don’t think voters are free of responsibility in all of this.
I saw Bill Maher last week, too, and as they said, one is left to wonder WHY the Dems don’t refute the accusations from the other side. I think it is addressed in this quote from my essay:
“Through tacit agreement the two parties approach the contest for the presidency [as] political kabuki [in which] the players know their roles and everyone sticks to the script,” “striking poses” that cannot be taken seriously.
Sorry, I guess I missed your point. But, then again, I am old; and, with these glasses, I don’t read as well between the lines as I used to.
However, your response prompts an extension of my remarks.
First, many posts incorporate the message of how useless it is to vote. These opinions are disappointing and incorrect.
It seems that the most recent election disproves this view. Voting changed the persons who represent nearly 100 legislative districts at the federal level. That’s about 25% of the congressional membership that had to stand for election during these midterms.
It remains to be seen whether tossing incumbents changes either philosophy or policy in Washington DC. Nevertheless, it’s hard to argue that voting in the midterms didn’t change something.
Further, we are, and presumably will continue to be, a society where only one vote is assigned to each qualified citizen. Assuming the wealthy will always be a tiny minority among us, the clear implication is that the power of the vote will always be a treasure more in the hands of the non-wealthy than the wealthy.
Second, nearly everyone knows what to do in a crisis – the well-informed and the ill-informed, the obtuse and the intelligent, libertarians and socialists, Chinese and Germans, etc.,. Thus, there was bipartisan cooperation immediately after Pearl Harbor, for example. For that matter, there was bipartisan cooperation after 9/11, therefore Patriot Act, therefore Iraq, therefore Afghanistan; but that’s all for another posting.
Here is the tricky part. We may have one or more impending crises in America. The question then might be: “Is it best to define the nature of what lies before us without regard to any partisan agenda to help develop the small nonpartisan solutions now, or wait until the consequences of these impending disasters are upon us to guarantee the mutual cooperation among all parties in the big solution?”
Just thinking. . . .
"fiscal conservative" has become code for government that's too small and impoverished to serve as a counterforce to powerful private interests (Bush's "Have-Mores") on behalf of the working middle class, a self-labelled fiscally conservative Democrat is nothing but a Grover Norquist Republican in drag, a true fiscal conservative would be looking for ways to raise revenue, and the way to raise revenue is to go to where the money is
“…the power of the vote will always be a treasure more in the hands of the non-wealthy than the wealthy.”
Yeah, but the wealthy own those whom we vote into office, so …
As for the impending crises, my view is that it would be better to work toward defining and solving them now without the partisan tilt, but in all likelihood that’s not what will happen. I think there are two current issues that support that premise; the deficit issue and the climate change. Both are used for political theater, but not addressed as if we really need to do anything about them.
The deficit is used as propaganda to cut social programs, and the climate change is used as leverage to garner corporate votes.
No, we’ll wait until the last second, or until it’s too late, to take any real action.
It’s nice to hear from you. The concept of “fiscal conservatism” in its current usage is a tool for short-changing the general welfare. The Bush regime was extremely successful in one staple of Republican orthodoxy; the best way to reduce government in all its forms and functions is to “starve the beast.”
“…the power of the vote will always be a treasure more in the hands of the non-wealthy than the wealthy.”
"Yeah, but the wealthy own those whom we vote into office, so … "
. . . and "we" will always have the ability to vote those who are so corrupted out in a continuing attempt to replace them with those who will represent our majority interests . . . and so on. . . .
Jambochilden has touched upon this exact point in her latest post.
Bottom line and my opinion: Your ability to think and to reason on these matters deserves much more than a mundane tie to one of our two major political parties.
Let the hacks reorganize their cheerleading squads for "winning". Instead, let's focus on what the guys out on the field should be doing.
I appreciate your responses. Mostly, I appreciate your intellect.
I will eagerly await your next blog posting.
Chris
“…ability to think and to reason on these matters deserves much more than a mundane tie to one of our two major political parties.”
This is to what I am appealing, to what we are appealing.