Musical Chairs in a Two Party System (or why not to vote for the DLC)

[arendt]

It is well-understood that the winner-take-all rules of American elections enforce a two party system - any dissatisfaction that creates a split-off third party simply dooms the third party, along with the party from which it split. We have all recently experienced such an event: in 1992, Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected. With that background in mind, I want to explore the implications of the American political duopoly in the current election.

Because of Perot, everyone is aware that 3rd parties are dangerous. In politics, though, when something is dangerous, it is perceived not as something to avoid, but as something to use as a weapon. So, both parties are trying to split their opponents. Dems encourage the theocon-neocon split. GOPers encourage the DLC-Progressive split. And, Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel are sitting in the wings watching.

Here is a synopsis of the drug-deal-gone-bad crime scene that passes for party politics today:

1) The GOP was originally hijacked by the neocons, who used the then-clueless theocons to shoulder out the sane (albeit evil) wing of the party. This hijacking was accepted (or misunderstood) by "sane" GOPers in 2000, and again in 2004. But, the neocons have completely discredited themselves via Iraq and the disastrous economy.

2) However, instead of sane GOPers getting their chance, the theocons are now in the process of trying to shake off the neocon manipulators - and (good news for the Dems), the manipulators are fighting back with their trademark viciousness.

3) The Democratic leadership has been hijacked by the anti-progressive DLC; and a lot of the party activists have been fuming over both the spinelessness of the leadership in the face of the GOP and the brutal intra-party tactics of the DLC against progressive causes and candidates.

4) The traditional news media have been completely taken over by corporate conglomerates who support the hijacking minorities in both parties. But, the Internet has turned into an alternative system that is proving robust enough to cancel out the corporate media among the politically literate. (One can only hope that "corporate media whore" becomes the "yellow journalist" of our age.)

My basic question is: where do the sane GOPers go in a duopoly?

A duopoly with four real voting blocks is like a game of musical chairs with four players and two chairs. If Huckabee brings home the nomination for the fundies, perhaps with some help from Ron Paul (Don't laugh. Crazies like each other.), then the sane GOPers are without a chair. But, if the DLC recruits the sane GOPers and manages to hang onto the Dem chair, then the progressives are out of the game; and the DLC+sane GOP alliance of convenience is the sure winner in the GE.

And that is why Hillary and Barack have been playing down those positions of theirs that might be "misunderstood" by GOPers to be "liberal". That is why they have been touting Donnie McClurkin and church visits and prayer. They are betting that the sane GOPers will jump no matter who the GOP nominates.

HRC and BO have decided that all that matters are numbers - GOP voters, Dem voters, they're all just polling numbers to be massaged. The progressives have first hand experience that the Clintons are good at this kind of bait-and-switch. Bill played down his corporate positions to get the liberal vote, then shafted them with NAFTA, GATT, and Telco deregulation. The progressives bought it because they thought they had no place else to go.

-------

Here's the problem with the "triangulate in the sane GOP" strategy of the DLC: Huckabee isn't going to win.

The neocons will shoot a few folks as examples (remember all those politicized AGs still out there?), and get the rest of the party to rally around one of the slavering sellouts (McCain, Romney, or Giuliani) - all of whom are pliant enough for the Bush crowd. (Hell, anyone who doesn't put the whole Cabal in leg irons and send them to the Hague is pliant enough.) From there, its a sequel to 2004.

This time, the GOP nominee has the freedom to distance himself from Bush. He will be a fresh face. (Even McCain can claim he's not a Bush or a Clinton.) He will wave the flag and belt the Bible (with the clear understanding that it is a fraud). The DLC nominee will be son-of-Republican light: no immediate end to the war, no prosecution of Bush crimes, no corporate greed bashing, no position even vaguely progressive because it might upset the mythical "swing voter", in short: no nothing. The Dem activists and base will be dispirited and may well fragment or stay home. The GOP is too disciplined for that.

End result: a GOP president and a DLC Congressional leadership. No redress for the last eight years, and continued warmongering, environmental insanity, and corporate pillage. The blame will be placed on "divided government".

--------

But, if a non-DLCer wins the Dem nomination, then the two chairs would be occupied by: a neocon-butt-kissing, transparently phony, corporate sellout versus an honest, intelligent, progressive Dem. That would give the country an unmistakable choice; and the Dems would sweep big enough to roll back and investigate the last eight years while the wreckage of the GOP scuttled back into their holes.

--------

The music has already started on the second to last round of musical chairs (or Survivor - if you watch that Social Darwinistic crapola). If the corporate media has the slighest excuse, it will declare that the coverage of the Dems will be limited to HRC or BO within microseconds of the end of polling in New Hampshire. The rest of the coverage will shift to cleaning up the mess on the GOP side, and the progressives will be deep-sixed faster and deeper than Howard Dean.

So, for the FSM's sake, whatever you do in NH, don't vote for the DLC. We can't risk this last chance to pry loose the GOP death grip on the steering wheel before they complete their mission to drive the American middle class over a cliff. Vote for someone who isn't comfortable with an endorsement from Rupert Murdoch, someone who isn't buddies with Joe Lieberman, someone with a resume instead of a lot of fuzzy words and a penchant for homophobic preachers.

Ducking and covering.

arendt

[stray cat]

1. Hillary, Obama and Edwards all were part of the DLC at one point - right!

[arendt]

9. Its not so black and white as you make it out.

Hillary still is DLC and proud of it.

Barack chose Lieberman for a mentor and talks a lot of the DLC talk.

Edwards quit a while ago.

----

But, I forgot. So many DUers don't do nuance.

arendt

[karynnj]

10. Obama never was

[TooBigaTent]

2. Methinks thou art preaching to the deaf, here. The DLC is no longer non-grata

among far too many DUers. They see power within their reach and just cannot resist grabbing for it.

You'd be better off running than simply ducking.

[arendt]

6. You mean the sane GOP wing of DU. n/t

[arendt]

12. I'm preaching while I still have a chance to preach. Welcome to DU. Now, listen up. n/t

[mod mom]

3. Why would the chair be occupied by: a neocon-butt-kissing, transparently phony, corporate sellout

if a non-DLCer wins the nomination? I'm not following this? Is it some kind of back room agreement? Couldn't Howard Dean remain chair?

[arendt]

5. Not the party chair. The presidency. The "musical chair" is a METAPHOR. Sheesh! n/t

[mod mom]

8. my bad...

:blush:

[Vincardog]

7. The chair is the musical chairs game chair. We have to have a Populist Progressive Fuck the DLC and

the GOP

[dpbrown]

4. Well said

The DLC is the problem. And there are too many here at DU that are DLC trolls.

[Zodiak]

16. And I have them all on ignore

...amazing how good my DU experience became by not having to read their endless flaming on every thread. They post like a zillion times a day! I refuse to pay for their electrons coming over my ethernet cable.

I do the same with their politicians. I have them on funding ignore...not a damned cent from me, and no rhetoric but criticism. The DLC is a cancer in the party, and I treat them accordingly.

[arendt]

22. I do that with the worst of them, but you have to monitor the attacks...

the constant posting is to recruit newbies as they arrive. There must be counter-recruitment or the DLC will win by sheer muscle.

In some sense, that is the reason for this OP. I never bought into The Permanent Campaign that the corporate media foisted on us right after 2006. Now that its finally primary season, the well is so poisoned about discussing individual candidates that I have had to back off to the entire DLC in order to make points that don't get lost in the groupie-fights and flame-wars.

I know its distasteful, but I don't think there is a choice.

[Zodiak]

28. The DLC will not win

So many get recruited by that bunch only to turn against them eventually. I've seen it happen many a time. Once given light, the DLCs warts are apparent to all.

85% of DU is staunchly progressive if any of our polls are an indicator of overall ideology. I would say the DLCers are sucking at their recruiting goals. The DLC apologists just try to get people to look the other way, and it doesn't work. Every time the right-wing Democrats betray us, people like you and I list the ones who betrayed us and their affiliation (or non-affiliation) with the DLC. That is where the rhetorical war is won...when the time is right and people are ready to listen.

The scatter-shot technique doesn't work.

But they post so damned much individually that when I am reading, I realize that half of my time is spent reading the same vacuous points, the same gutter-snipes, and the same innuendo. A waste of my precious time on this Earth reading their crap.

[antigop]

19. DLC trolls? Here? on DU? Really? n/t

[Zorra]

32. The DLC/Lieberman apologist trolls lost all credibility with Democrats

on this board after their hero, former DLC Chairman Joe Lieberman, sold out the Democratic Party.

But they are still at it like it is their livelihood, bashing our good progressive Democrats and preaching the DLC message that Democrats should be more like republicans.

[puebloknot]

11. Here, share my stainless steel umbrella. You're right, of course!

Party loyalty may yet be the undoing of America!

At a time like this, a fortune could be made in thinking caps, but nobody's buying because they're soooooo passe!

[truedelphi]

13. The OP mentions the year 1992. That was a while ago

Statistically the demagraphics have changed

We have 28% of American voters saying they are Republican
33% say they vote Demcoratic

And a whooping 39% of American voters are independent.

This research was done by the Pew Research group.

We saw what this meant last night in Iowa: neither of the two main media choices won.

Instead, Obama and Huckabee, a real long shot, took over by solid leads. And although
I don't know where Obama stands with the DLC, Huckabee is despised by both the CCN talking heads and the Republican National Committee. They lie about any and every thing they can when his name is mentioned.

[arendt]

14. But the winner-take-all election rules are still here. They are what drives the process...

not the voter demographics.

In the end, only the two established parties stand a chance of winning the GE. The independents still have to pick one of those or waste their vote (or, worse, cause the greater of two evils to be elected).

What you said is completely inside the bounds of my thesis. Huckabee is competing for the GOP seat. He will be crushed. Obama is competing for the Dem seat. If he wins, my prediction is GOP pres and DLC Congress.

arendt

[truedelphi]

17. I'm not trying to unseat your thesis but to offer some

Data to help it be as accurate a thesis as it can be.

Because 39% of the country's voters are committed to choosing their candidates according to that person's message and not to whether the media is backing them or whether there is support for the canddiate from the old boys in the back rooms, that thinking is out.

[arendt]

20. I'm not following your argument here...

The independents may or may not be eligible to vote in primaries on a state-by-state basis. Primary turnouts are notoriously low and skewed to party faithful. According to winner-take-all, the independents votes are worthless unless cast for a major party candidate, whether in the GE or the primary. My argument is that once the primaries have been held, one of my scenarios will have been locked in. So, it comes down to votes in party primaries, whether by party members or independents.

What percent of your 39% will vote in a primary? How does that % compare to the projected party faithful?

arendt

[truedelphi]

23. Independent carries the old fashioned meaning

At least in this study of Pew research.

It means that you think for yourself. You don't listen to the MSM for your news. You are on the internet(s) and participate in on-line blogging.

It means that you vote for the better person according to message. So you might vote for a local Republican dog catcher, and a Democratic assembly person. And maybe those choices are advertised locally, or maybe not, but you have read the issues and have decided on who they are and what qualifications they have.

And if you are leaning towards the Republicans, you aren't going to vote for Ghiuliani, but Huckabee or Ron Paul.

And if you lean towards the Democrats, you will lean towards Edwards, or Kucinich. (Remember Kucinich offered the suggestion to his people that they vote for Barack in Iowa.)

And of course some of this 39% will be very independent and hold out for Nader or for Buchanon or whoever.

[arendt]

25. Can you give me a link to this study? How did they determine the number?...

I mean, if they are saying an "independent" can be a member of the Dem or GOP, then they must have a breakdown of what percent of these independents are registered with each party and what % are registered independent.

If that's not the case, then this last post of yours did not remove my confusion vis-a-vis the OP.

Also, I would be greatly encouraged if it were true that 39% of registered voters do not listen to the MSM!

arendt

P.S. offline for a while.

[truedelphi]

34. I thought that I had bookmarked this information

And can't find it.

However I am finding this other information at this URL
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6943953#6940728

It details how Pew researchers are uncovering that fewer and fewer Americans want a candidate that reflects ALL liberal or ALL conservative values.

I have a call into Pew Research for next week, so will be asking the same question you pose as well as others.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. False premise, Bill Clinton would've won a two way race

It may have been closer in the electoral college but all statistical evidence not cooked by right wingers says that he would've won.

[arendt]

18. Care to produce some of your statistical evidence? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Here's one study

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-5853%28199901%2943%3A1%3C233%3ATVATEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Perot helped Bush that doesn't come from right wingers?

[arendt]

33. Barry Burden is a solid reference. I accept your fact, but not your generalization that ALL...

third party movements have no effect on the two party system.

Sorry for the late response. Can't stick around. Wanted to acknowledge your citation.

arendt

[Zodiak]

21. You know I love your threads, arendt

Your disdain for the DLC even exceeds my own. I will never vote for a DLCer again...ever. And yeah, that includes Clinton.

However, I have a slight bone to pick with this OP. I am not completely convinced that Obama represents the same kind of triangulating corporate apologist as the DLC, Clinton in particular. We know that the DLC has groomed Clinton to be "acceptable" on all of the hotbutton issues that keep liberals voting while having the rest of their members vote like Atilla the Hun. This has kept the * juggernaut trampling over this country unabated while preparing the next corporate presidency to maintain the plan (just "smarter" than Commander Codpiece) through the other party.

I saw much the same thing with the DLC and Obama when he ran for the Senate (the grooming), but when tracking his votes, he did score more consistently with the progressive position and has voted directly against the DLC more than a few times. He has publically stated that he wants no part in the DLC and made them take his name off of their website. Like I said, his votes do not quite jibe with DLC positions. He could be a stealth DLCer like Schumer...but I do not have evidence of that as of yet.

Friendship with Joe Leiberman is immaterial. Boxer is a friend to Leiberman, isn't she? Not damning enough.

I think that Obama is a triangulator, but not in the vein of the DLC. I believe that he truly does think that if we can just sing Koombayah and hold hands, we can rebuild this country (he's naive and idealistic). He used the DLC for his meteoric rise to the Senate, but I do not see him continuing down that path.

I could be wrong because I cannot read his mind, but it is my belief that he is different than HRC. Not GREAT....but not DLC. We can work with him.

But I'd rather be working with Edwards or Kucinich.

[arendt]

24. Thank you. But, what you say just makes my head ache. So many layers of camouflage...

Case in point, Chuck Schumer. Never saw that coming.

I haven't tracked Obama's votes; just been nauseated by the Donnie McClurkin thing.

I find his rhetoric so vague as to make me suspicious, rather than hopeful.

Why, why, why do I have to choose to vote for these carpetbagging corporatists who have bought their way into the working man's party? Worse than that, why is it necessary to spend so much brainpower to decode exactly what a public person really stands for? How can there be real choice if no one knows what's inside the package. We need a truth in packaging law for politicians.

----

While I can listen to what you say about Obama, I worry more than you do that he is nothing more than Terminator 2 - an improved version of a soulless killer that does a better impersonation of being human.

arendt

[Zodiak]

27. Camouflage?

I am not sure what you mean by that. I only write about things as I see them.

As far as Schumer, he has used DLC funds to take more than a few trips and has close association with them, speaking at their engagements. He is not offically DLC, but his actions have protected that wing of the party at every turn and his recruiting for the DSCC seems to always favor DLC hopefuls and marginalize progressives. So I call him a "stealth DLCer".

The McClurkin issue disturbed a lot of us. To me, it is not an incident that, in isolation, would result in my pulling of support. I am a populist....economic issues are what drive my voting. But I respect that others feel more strongly about social issues.

I find Obama's rhetoric vague, as well. Like I said, he is a triangulator, but I do not think he is a DLC triangulator...he even may be corporate, but he is not DLC. He does not draw from that power and support infrastructure, therefore he is not beholden to them in ways that a true DLCer is. I think he is naive and amenable to change given enough pressure....you had mentioned such an incident in the OP about Obama supporting the filibuster after being pressured.

If we cave in his ears at the appropriate time, we might get shit done.

Amen to truth in packaging for politicians. I would not have to waste so much time tracking their voting records to tell shit from shinola if they would just tell us straight-up what we can expect from them. But my eyes are very open with Senators in particular.

And you are right, you are worried more than I am about Obama. I am not one of his ardent supporters (I can say for sure than I am against Clinton and my ideological candidate is Kucinich followed by Edwards), but I feel that Obama is acceptable. Barely so, but still acceptable. His voting record is superior to Clinton by a 10% margin on my personal progressive index (he is 63% and she is 53%).

If he is Terminator 2, I would be genuinely surprised. I could be wrong, but of course, I do not feel that way.

Keep on fighting, arendt.

[arendt]

31. Camouflage is a back-reference to my post about PDQ Dems...

what I'm saying is that, if you get a little paranoid, then vagueness can easily be interpreted as an attempt to dodge the question, to camouflage your true position. Since you say his true position is close to the DLC, but not the same, the camouflage has caused me to assume its a cover for being crypto-DLC. You claim he's a different species that happens to live in the same vicinity. Hope that explains.

I hear what you are saying about Obama. You are saying that his vagueness is corporate, but not DLC; that he can be pressured. I will do some digging into his background, which I haven't bothered to do so far. But the very fact that you stipulate his corporateness gives me little comfort - although more comfort than if HRC had the lead.

I will do my best to keep fighting, but I think only the professionals can fight during the upcoming primary madness. The rest of us are just spectators except in our own states.

I appreciate the extended, friendly conversation. Haven't felt so safe in a thread in a while.

Peace

arendt

[peacetalksforall]

30. I think of all the people in the DLC that I have watched and listened to

in the last seven years and I envision them all holding the hand of a Republican operative on one side and a lobbyist (the kind I disdain) on the other.

It's too bad Hillary Clinton could not break away.

Listening to them is a bummer, downer, and causes a form of hopeless feeling.

If anyone is passing messages to them - tell them I resent that they are the ones on tv supposedly speaking for me. They are not. I am thankful that NBC is allowing voices other than DLCers on one of their networks - as long as they don't ridicule the non-DLCers.

I cheer for the non-DLCer candidates, if there are any - in the end.

If Hillary does not win the nomination, does it mean that the DLC will go away?

Is there anything more about the tallying machines? Is there anything to worry about regarding vote counting and manipulating?

Let's hear it for all the Dem youth who are out there and vocal. I praise them and hope they will figure it all out about the DLC, in spite of their youth.

[peacetalksforall]

29. No to DLC. No to DLC candidates. It is very obvious this year, that the

DLC is all lined up around Hillary. They have a line block. If some at the DLC are ALSO lining up with Obama or Richardson, let me know. I assume they are not in a line block with Edwards.