Progressives fighting a Two-Front War. Can we resolve this?

[Armstead]

It seems that those who are left of center are facing two battles here.

When I say left-of-center, I do not only mean hard-core lefties. I also mean moderates who believe the Democrats have rolled over helped push the country too far to the right in the last 15 years.

Front Number 1 is ABB. We want Bush outta there, and we want to at least gain an equal footing with the GOP again, and hopefully gain superiority. That is not a controversial goal on the center to left side.

Front Number Two is far more difficult. We wnt ABB, but we also want ABBAU -- Anything But Business as Usual. That is we want to see a Democratic Party that is more clearly liberal and progressive. That doesn't just stand against Bush, but against the values and system he represents.

That means a Democratic Party that is less tied to the eilte and more representative of the average majority and the poor and disadvantaged. A Democratic Party that stops echoing cthe conservative corporate "conventional wisdom." That is not afraid to acknowledge that the country really has become polarized, and that power and wealth have become too concentrated. And to actually DO SOMETHING about that core issue.

This is being played out in the primaries. It is generally framed as Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman as the status quo and the choice of the "centrists." Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton to varying degrees have become the proxies for those who want more fundamental change. Clark has been sort of an enigma on this -- some see him as a Clinton staking horse, others see him as a real outsider and reformer.

With Kerry in the lead, it is tempting to feel like the contest is over. The Washington Establishment is asserting itself through the media and other means, and pushing more of the same on us.

I dunno if that's true. Kerry talks a good populist game, but sometimes seems woefully short on specifics, or identifying the real problems. He doesn't seem to be stretching much beyond the familiar DLC message....It's easy to say you'll challenge the "special interests," but it's another to clearly point out who they are, and why they are too powerful.

But I come here not bash Keeey or pump up any particular candidate. Rather I have a more basic question.

Is it possible to be both ABB and ABBAU and feel like the Democratic candidate -- and the party as a whole -- "get it," in terms of what is really wrong? To clearly articulate with passion what we really have to do to reform the basic rot in our system?

Or will we have to sit through yet another campaign of non-issues, knowing that nothing will really change, except perhaps being able to stop the wretched excess of the Bush GOP?

Is there a way to fuse a truly progressive message with moderate ABB, without falling once again into the trap of vanilla centrism?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Business as usual is good for business.

And that is what the US, including Politics, Inc. is about - business.

The businesses that are the most profitable are weapons (and the fuel to run them) drugs, and human beings.

Most "liberal" or "progressive" agenda items are not supportive of business interests.

[Armstead]

2. I disagree

>>>Most "liberal" or "progressive" agenda items are not supportive of business interests.<<<

I disagree. On the contrary, the liberal and progressive agenda can be good for business, if business plays by the rules and pollicies support the more enlightened and productive aspects of business.

But whether one believes business is bad or good, that's the system we're stuck with. The key as I see it is to make that system as humane and fair and beneficial for the majority as possible.

[Terwilliger]

8. There's the problem

if business plays by the rules and pollicies support the more enlightened and productive aspects of business

"Rules? Enlightened? You must be a socialist!!"

So, progressives are halted by the fact that making capitalism better for everybody is tantamount to socialism. You see how socialism is STILL a big ole bugaboo for most people...even around here.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. That's a big "if" and one that is itself not supportive of business

humane and fair do not increase revenues to McDonnell-Douglas, or Halliburton, or Wal-Mart.

Beneficial to who? Beneficial to you and beneficial to Monsanto may have some differences. Monsanto is going to go with beneficial to Monsanto.

Playing by the rules is not a problem. The rules are made by who has the most money.

[CertusLaurus]

3. There is a way- Dean

If you want a two-front war, Dean is the answer. He will begin to campaign more moderately after nomination but will return to his ABBAU roots (I think he realizes that ABBAU is a more important long-range goal than ABB). If Kerry gets the nod, his sprint to the center will leave progressives spinning, and we will only get ABB, not ABBAU.

Like you, I want a real choice this year, not some watered-down contest like 2000. Dean is the only one who will give the American people a clear choice about how they want this country run in the future. If the progressive message can get through, real change can happen at all levels- without that change, ABB will just be DRM (Doesn't Really Matter).

[WatchWhatISay]

7. Welcome to DU Certus Laurus, that's a great first post

and is why I support Dean. Last night I found myself thinking about how I would feel if Kerry or Edwards won the nomination. I could accept it and see some good in both. And especially Kerry, sounds like whatever finally got into Al Gore my have infected him. But he has had such a long time to live up to that kind of talk and missed the chance so many times.

I think in the long run I would grieve the lost chance for this country to make a big step closer to that ideal of meaningful democracy in my lifetime.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Armstead, I hope you aren't falling into the neurolinguistic programming

trap.

When I HEAR people say "establishment" candidate I cringe. Please define what ESTABLISHMENT is. Is Dean NOT establishment? How so? The very same interests (many) going after favors in Washington, seek favors from governors.

I also see people bashing Kerry because he hasn't carried legislation but what I FIND humorous about that is that most legislation carried lately by ANYONE is to pay off a segment of their corporate contributors...that is why I laugh. NOT carrying legislation but being part of the drafting and vetting processes is VERY admirable...Kerry has probably cleaned up dangerous language in bills 1000 times that people will NEVER know about or successfully raised issues in hearings that led to poor legislation being killed.

While it is true he has tacked more to the center for his presidential run, I don't consider that the VICE that some people consider it to be.

I am AABB (almost anyone but Bush) and will gladly vote and give elbow grease to ANY of the candidates.

As far as our nations problems, economic and otherwise are concerend, I am not looking for some silver bullet. It will take DECADES to clean up the mess of these past 4 years.

Anyone not clear of that fact is WAY to Pollyanna-ish in their outlook for me to take them seriously.

[MissMarple]

5. I agree there will be no quick fix even if a Dem wins the presidency.

There will be years of mopping up to clear the air of far right reactionary and religious politics. Reeducating the American public seems to be an almost impossible job, but if it is going to happen it could actually begin here and now. And the grassroots element is what can make it possible.

I believe the far left is a much at fault for this mess as the far right. We do not have a core of leaders and thinkers that articulate what most of America that leans toward the sensible middle actually believes in and what we need to prosper economically and culturally as a nation.

[Dark Star]

6. Amen!

We cannot take 4 more years of Bush. These past few have changed our country terribly; can you imagine if he and his lovely cabinet don't have to concern themselves with reelection?

Please don't listen to the 'true believers' this time - this time might be our last time.

[MissMarple]

12. It could push us to the wall. And that could initiate an ugly scene.

Sometimes I think of the social conditions in Arnold's movie "The Running Man". The Denver Post has had a couple of articles this past week on creating a "tent city" for the homeless. I believe the proposers were inspired by one in either Oregon or Washington state. Now that is chilling.

[Armstead]

27. NSMA

Establishment candidate -- Those who are part of, and listen to, the small elite circle that defines "conventional wisdom" and either ignores or is unaware of what is going on outside of the DC Beltway or the New York suburbs. The ones who take the positions of Wall St. as the only economically viable formulas. The ones who define any challenge to the status quo as "too liberal" or "too far left." The politicians and "strategists" who hobnob with the corporate lobbyists, and rush to join them when they leave office....etc.

You are correct, that cleaning up the economic mess will take a long time. But we gotta start somewhare, and that is the need to admit that there is a mess that needs fundamental reform. The "estaablishment" Democratic leaders who don't want to articulate that fact, or start to lay out a progressive agenda on how to do it, are counterproductive, IMO.

I know who Dean is and what he is. But he is the kind of politician we need to get the ball rolling, because he is at least raising the issues that need raising. He acknowledges the excess of corporate power, media concentration, he's not afraid to admit that the problem goes much deeper than George Bush.

I'm not bashing Kerry for the sake of bashing him. Rather, my question is whether Kerry will take those concerns seriously, bother to understand them in a non-Beltway level and be willing to articulate and eventuially act in a direct way to start making the changes we need to make.

[GOPFighter]

9. Unfortunately, these two fronts are...

...almost mutually exclusive. The average voter admits they don't like "business as usual" yet the don't like to rock the boat too much. I'm afraid the only way to get real, fundamental change in our political system is for then RW to screw up the country so bad that the average voter realizes money and cronyism is shafting Americans big-time. Unfortunately, in the process of screwing up the country a lot of good. decent people and their families are going to suffer badly.

I'm reminded of an aquantence in Tennessee who is very conservative (and supports the war in Iraq, but not enough to join the military and fight). He recently lost his job after working for his company for 4 years. He was "laid off" because there wasn't enough work, but a week later the company hired new workers (at about $1.50 an hour less than my friend) to do what he did. He finally got a new job, but last week his child got sick and he had to stay home from work (his wife has used up all her sick leave taking care of the baby during earlier illnesses). After missing one day, he got a call from the company telling him if he had to stay home a second day (the baby was still sick), he was fired. Yet this guy still hates unions and fervently believes that the Republicans are on his side. This is what we're up against.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Resolve? Or fight for what's right?

The DLC has led this party into the belief that the only way to "win" (a purely relative term when considering what we will "win") is to become more like the republicans. That only "safe" issues should be addressed, aimed at specific groups of voters with plenty of room for maneuver - The DLC formula:

Abortion rights..with restrictions
Affirmative Action..with reservations
The environment...with compromises to the timber industry
Peace...except if it might appear unpatriotic
International Cooperation..unless it means surrendering power
Corporate Power..seek "cooperation" with the capitalists

In essence, the DLC "moderate" wing of the party prefers paying lip service to liberals and relying on the idea that we have nowhere else to go for fear of getting stuck with Bush. Note the plethora of Loyalty Oaths here at DU.

The only way we can move this party to the left is by withholding our votes if yet another "safe", "moderate", "bi-partisan", "not too liberal" appeaser is nominated.

That's what I plan to do and I hope that other progressives will do likewise.

[Dark Star]

11. So

you want 4 more years of Bush because we can't make a great leap to the left in one election cycle?

Great...talk to you in a couple of years...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. So

You want to continue the drift to the right that the Democratic Party has taken since the advent of the DLC?

[CWebster]

20. Sometimes I consider this

and play out the same scenario in my head, but as GOPfighter's post above attests, even then they don't make the connections necessary to address the problem. So long as our media is increasingly monopolized and caters to the status quo mindset, they will seek to support representitives of it and mobilize to derail any challenges. It is sad, and like you I feel powerless and frustrated and resort to feeling that witholding my vote is the only influence I can take comfort in having. Voting always against and never for anything is increasingly becoming difficult to do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Too difficult this time.

I've held my nose way too many times and convinced myself that "wasting my vote" only ensures that the dread repuglies will get in office. In fact, if I had or had not voted Democrat in almost every election since 1966 it would have made no difference whatsoever.

The only time that I actually "withheld" my vote (rather than vote 3rd party) was rewarded. Our Democrat rep had sold her soul to the NRA so I sat it out. We were saddled with a one term ultra right pugly. Since, we've had a very liberal rep who voted against the IWR.

The only real power we have is our votes (assuming you're not a millionaire). And, you can see the results in this primary. In effect, all of the candidates (save Joe) have moved to the left in search of our votes.

It actually does work.

[Armstead]

28. Crux of the matter

"Voting always against and never for anything is increasingly becoming difficult to do."

That is the problem. It is disheartening to see the enthusiasm of the Dean and Kucinich campaigns being overrun by the efficient but bloodless ABB machine.

[GOPFighter]

15. What if...?

Would you be willing to suffer four more years of Bush IF it meant neocon/conservative/corporatist philosophy was so discredited and hated by the American people at the end of his term that they gladly voted in a progressive President and gave the Democrats a solid majority in both houses of Congress in 2008?

What if the alternative was an ineffective Democratic President (hounded and investigated and smeared by the rabid right wing press and hate radio hosts) and a Republican House and Senate solidly united in opposition to anything the Democratic President wanted to accomplish?

I will be crushed if Bush wins in November, but there are times I wonder if there could be a silver lining...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Three-pronged approach

1) Vote for the nominee in the GE

2) Vote for Dennis Kucinich in the Minnesota caucuses on 3/2 and organize as many people in my precinct as possible to do so, no matter who has what number of delegates. That is a risk-free way of sticking it to the establishment, since one candidate or another may be too far ahead to catch by that time anyway.

3) See what I can do to get as many new members for the Congressional Progressive Caucus as possible by supporting their campaigns, as well as those of progressive local officials.

[CWebster]

17. Not with a media complicit in preventing it.

I still can't get over the fact that Kerry had all those major media players in one room coaching him. This while they were tearing down Dean. Scratch the surface and it is all there. The fix is in and we are expected to do our bit. They will most likely prop up Kerry in the same way that they propped up smirk and I can think of no two more unattractive contenders, both who could barely get any notice at all if they didn't have the machine behind them.

[Iverson]

18. No, we can't resolve this.

Look around you. Here on progressive DU, the moment anyone talks about fundamental change, someone else accuses "Great. You want four more years of Bush." Never mind for the moment that what progressives want is very unlike Bush; that's the mantra. The audience doesn't get any more sympathetic as you engage Middle America.

That leaves one with a hard choice. I've chosen to set a good example rather than dissolve where I stand.

edited typo

[sangh0]

21. I agree

the progressives who decided to wage a "two front war" should have considered their ability to actually fight a two front war.

[Iverson]

23. Let's explore this.

Are you referring to the pioneers of the civil rights movement, for example (who undertook no such feasibility study), or is the comment limited to people with whom you have disagreements right now?

Is winning the ultimate measure of whether something is right, as implied in your phrase "considered their ability?"

Are honest disagreements on the table for discussion, or should the progressive side be content with shutting up and voting for corporate centrists?

America wants to know!

[ulysses]

26. you know, you're right.

All this would be a lot easier if people in certain leadership positions hadn't decided to take the party base for granted. Still, one fights the fights one is given. :shrug:

[SeattleRob]

19. I agree... The establishment is close to winning

There is a battle going on between the Washington Establishment and the outside Washington - grassroots part of the party. Of course, Dean is "establishment" as far as being "mainstream," but he is not part of the inside the beltway, DNC business as usual crowd. (Carville, McAulife, etc). The "business as usual crowd" are the same masterminds who check polls before speaking out on an issue. They are the ones who remained silent while Bush lied us into war and sat by while Bush strutted on the aircraft carrier in his gonad enhancing flight suit. The only reason the establishment started speaking out was because Dean was doing it and becoming more and more popular. (Dennis K. was speaking out from the beginning, but unfortunately the media ignored him. Dean got more coverage because he was a "centrist" governor - thus, less threatening.) When Dean started to get too big and threatening to the elite (remember he talked about reorganizing the DNC), they had to bring him down.

If Kerry is the nominee, I will gladly cast a vote for him. But he does represent business as usual. This morning on FAUX news a man from the DLC - I am forgetting his name -seemed very pleased in Kerry's recent upsurge. This is the same person who authored several scathing op-ed pieces on Dean.

As I said, Dean is mainstream, but he is an unknown to the Washington insiders and that scares the hell out of them. (Clark is the other unknown who is also the recipient of sleazy attacks.) I would compare what is happening now to what happened in the Republican party in 1964 with Goldwater. There is a struggle going on for the heart and soul of the Democratic party. I won't count Dean out, but things are looking tough. I will say that the movement that he started is not going away any time soon. We the people have been given a glimpse of the possibilities of a truly Democratic party.

If Kerry is the nominee, and eventual president, he will be a thousand times better than Bush. However, I don't expect to see much change as far as globalization and the corporate control of the governing process. I am, however, not ruling out the possibility that he might surprise us and do some really wonderful things.

[The Magistrate]

22. There Is Only One Way To Win A Two Front War

The enemies must be struck in succession, with the greatest concentration of power possible directed first at the most immediately threatening.

In this case, that first blow must be directed against the criminals of the '00 Coup, who present the greatest danger by far to both the country, and the prospects for any left or progressive success. Until these reptiles are routed, no other good thing can be done.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[pacifictiger]

24. I think the biggest issues

directly involve integrity and greed, no matter what subject. All issues boil down to: be kind and mindful of other living things; avoid laziness and put forth your best effort; avoid greed and share what you have with those less blessed by fortune; be honest.

Today, the democrats, in the eyes of many long time republicans, still carry a stigma and identity with corrupted labor unions, combined with way too much letter of the law, rather than spirit of the law litigation, facilitated by vulture lawyers. Most exploited were the left activist extreme, or society's most vulnerable citizens. The taxpapers or business picked up the tab because thats where the money was. The victims were were short changed and branded as being a "dirty liberal," and the vulture lawyers walked away with the cream.

In years gone by, I certainly felt republican - or what used to be republican before the bible thumpers and corporate crooks took over. That used to be the arena of the southern slave owner democrats.
Funny how the party platform has alost reversed itself because of fickle politicians riding the winds of change to feather their own nests.

My outrage against democrats mostly was because of union corruption and strong arm tactics. The fact that as a union member I was expected to tow the line - to be a free thinker was to be bullied, and I resented that. I was expected to do "a" job like a non thinking robot. As a business customer, I resented the fact that employees would say "I can't do that its not my job description," and as an observer, was amazed that the union protected lazy and dishonest employees merely because of seniority entitlement, to the detriment of fellow employees, the company, and the customers.

But the bell curve has certainly moved right, albeit in name only!! Blue collar union corruption for the most part has moved on up the food chain; sons and daughters went to college and graduated into corrupt corporate strong arm tactics. Once again leaving the ordinary honest citizens out in the cold. I find interesting parallels between
union/catholicmafia/prohibition in 20's and beyond corporate/southernfundamentalist/drugwar in the 80s and beyond.
Something to think on.

[Armstead]

29. Posted by Arendt (Pasted here by me)

The "Long March" of the Progressive Democrats
by arendt

...."As Mao explained it in his interview with Snow, the
....defeat of Japan took precedence over social revolution
....because it was necessary first to defeat foreign imperialism
....and win independence; only then could the struggle for
....socialism succeed. For that reason he was willing to join
....forces with the Kuomintang (Nationalists) against the
....imperialist enemy. Mao was very convincing. 'For a people
....being deprived of its freedom, the revolutionary task is not
....immediate Socialism but the struggle for independence.
....We cannot even discuss Communism if we are robbed
....of a country in which to practice it.'"

- "Stillwell and the American Experience in China"
....Barbara Tuchman

Armstead asks "how are the progressives going to fight on two
fronts: against the GOP and against the entrenched,
corrupt leadership of their own party?

One immediate historical precedent comes to mind -
China in WW2. At that time, the Japanese military-
industrial machine (GOP) was occupying China.
The Nationalist Chinese Government under Chaing
Kai-shek (DLC Dems) was sort of fighting the Japanese,
mostly by fleeing so far away the Japanese wouldn't bother
to follow. And, the Chinese Communists under Mao
(Progressive Dems) were assailed by both the Japanese
and the Nationalists. We all know the history - Mao won.
So, the theoretical answer to Armstead's question is that it
can be done.

Mao understood that by fighting the Japanese he would
attract patriotic Chinese, and he would shame the Nationists.
Also, Mao's army was a disciplined, peoples' army, not the
brutal, corrupt army of the Nationalist warlords. The leadership
was resolute and uncorrupt. It played on the ancient Chinese
concept of the "mandate of heaven" to say that legitimacy
had been withdrawn from the Nationalists for their corruption.

...."Observing them...when he (Col. George A. Lynch, West
....Point Grad) was traveling in China on leave, he found they did
....not press gang soldiers, did pay them, and did not let them prey
....on the civilian population...As a result, desertions from the
....Kuomintang forces to the Communists were numerous."

-Ibid

This analogy leads me to the following strategy. The Progressives
should assail BUSH and the GOP at every turn. They should
attack him very hard to earn the respect of the rank and file
of the Democratic Party. They should not directly attack the DLC,
but only indirectly attack by the good example they set in all
their positive dealings with rank-and-file Dems and their
ferocity against Republicans.

Mao's council is wise. Fight the imperialists first.

----

Now before anyone calls me out as a Commie, here is what
the American commander in China, General "Vinegar Joe"
Stilwell thought about that:

...."Familiar with the plight of the Chinese peasant and
....unfamiliar with Marxism, Stilwell regarded Communists as
....a social phenomenon and a natural outcome of oppression...
....he wrote of the farmers: 'naturally they agitated for a readjustment
....of land ownership and this made them communists - at least
....that is the label put on them...but what they were really after
....was land ownership under reasonable conditions. It is not in
....the nature of Chinese to be communists.'"

-Ibid

So, I put it to you that American workers are naturally agitating
for a readjustment of their financial and governmental rights
vis a vis the overbearing and corrupt corporations. It is not
in the nature of Americans to be Communists; but it is the
nature of Americans not to roll over and play dead.