Progs, Greens, Socialists(?): For your consideration...

[chiburb]

I've heard you say that Kerry doesn't float your boat, he isn't THAT much different from Bush, he's just another corporatist, and that no real progress or change will take place. While I disagree with the "there's no difference" camp, I respect the opinions expressed by the majority of your minority. I'm closer to your way of thinking than the DLC's (at the least). To you, I ask that you read this column by one of your own. Not just the snip I'm providing, but the whole thing... it isn't that long. Then, please explain to me why the author is wrong. Thanks (in advance)!

Snip:

As I explained in a comment on a previous thread, the concept of the Popular Front isn’t intended to be an argument for a Borg-like melding of the small-d democratic left and the large-d DLC Democrats. To the contrary, I see it as a way for progressives to help defeat Bush and the Republican reaction, while still asserting their own political identity and building their own political institutions – institutions that can support and strengthen the “Democratic Party wing” of the Democratic Party.

I know many Greens and Naderites regard this as just a sophisticated version of corporate prostitution – DLC extra lite. Some ultra-left purists apparently prefer an impotent anger to the inevitable compromises and disappointments of working through, and sometimes in, the Democratic Party. Others wrap their third-party hopes in dreams of proportional representation, or instant runoff voting, or some other procedural deus ex machina that will deliver them from political irrelevancy.

To the former group, I've nothing left to say. I’ve walked your path and I’ve seen where it leads – to the graveyard of lost causes. I’m too old now to strike poses, and too angry to wallow in my own helplessness. I don’t just want to fight, I want to win -- not simply for the sake of winning (this isn’t a soccer game) but to turn the tide, to start pushing the conservatives back, after all these long years of being on the defensive. And the only way I know how to do that is to create a political coalition broad enough, and strong enough, to beat the Republican machine. If you won’t help, then you are irrelevant to me. I don’t give a damn what you do or who you vote for.

To the latter – to those who still cling to electoral reform as the road to a third party promised land – I would submit that the Popular Front is your only hope of reaching Zion. As it is, you’re caught in a logical trap: Without a viable third party to provide the political muscle, the existing Republicrat duopoly will never allow electoral reform. But without electoral reform, a third party will never be viable in this country. The duopoly owns both the chicken and the egg.

PLEASE read the rest here:
http://billmon.org/archives/001169.html

[Dhalgren]

1. There will always be the pull between

compromising for the right reason and selling-out for no good reason. It is an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing. Many progressives have been so thoroughly shit upon over the past half century or more, that they just can't bring themselves to sell-out one more time for no good reason. If progressive/leftists ideals and policies are not viable in the Republican/Democrat "reality", then maybe personal integrity is all a person has left - and that may simply not be for sale.

[chiburb]

3. Is that YOUR position?

Maha asked this on her blog:

Is that the only way it works, though? Do we all just vote our own self-interests, or do we consider what's good for the nation as a whole, whether it benefits us individually or not?

In other words, is the election all about "me," or is it about "We, the People"?
http://www.mahablog.com/

[info being]

18. An election is about electing someone who speaks for us

The collective result of all of us doing that is supposed to be what's good for the country. We are not all supposed to act like pundits...we are supposed to find the person who represents us.

Your approach leads to a lot of manipulation by the media. How do you know what's good for the nation as a whole? Define "good". Who's good?

The election is about a collection of "me's" which = "we the people".

[OhioStateProgressive]

48. well

If elections were truly about "we", than Kucinich would be the winner.

Because since his ideas were correct, and not compromises, they would be the best for all.

[HFishbine]

2. If the point is

that electing a dem would advance to likelyhood of a viable third party, I'm all for it. Somehow, this doesn't ring true though. It sounds more like self-justification from a tired old fart who isn't willing to support the younger generation in the quest he once held dear.

[chiburb]

6. Did you read the article?

It seems to me that he's encouraging the "younger generation" to stay involved and FIGHT for the Democrats...

"So instead of giving to the Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party, I would encourage everyone to contribute to the small-d democratic organization of your choice – one that is committed to electing big-d Democratic candidates, but is not directly controlled by Kerry or by the party apparatus. There are, of course, a number of progressive groups to choose from, including Emily’s List, True Majority, MoveOn, and the new grassroots organization that Howard Dean is creating out of his campaign."

[HFishbine]

8. My Bad

I confess. I responded based only on the portions quoted in the original post. You are right. The rest of the article is far fromt he fatilistic, pessimistic tone I erroneously perceived in the posted paragraphs. Thanks for the correction.

[info being]

19. That's good...because the snip posted here seemed to be..

wholy without substance. I don't even know what the author's point is except: "I'm old and have given up and you should too."

[salin]

36. Exactly the message i have been trying to foster... and another org

The Progressive Majority... identifies progressive candidates that can be supportered and collectively create... a more progressive majority.

I view it as the short term; short term plus; intermediate term and long term stragegy.

Short term: Kerry as president (cut the bush junta off at the knees.)
Short term plus: Work the existing anger (anti bush) into local efforts for congressman... who is to say there isn't another 1994 to be had (when the house switched.) Old calculus said no way. The GOP is selfdestructing at the hands of the neocons/farreligiousright/bush coalition. Strategic work, and I think they will lose more seats than they imagine. I think that a Kerry with a democratic congress will be immediately more effective than Clinton - who had to learn the ropes and earn the respect of dc insiders (as each 'outsider new president has to do).

Intermediate term: get congress and start moving it back left - groups that target candidates who are elected as progressives (and thus the 'fear' of being 'too left' by constituents gets neutralized.)

Long Term: take back the national dialogue. Twenty years ago supply-side economics and complete deregulation were seen as extreme, unworkable (esp the supplyside economics), and not in the public best interest (some deregulation - was acknowledged to be needed but complete laisez-faire with regards to public safety and the like was seen as unwise.) With Reagan as a beloved figurehead - by the time Bush1 got into office, the rightwing echochamber (media, news sources, etc.) took effect. Today these economic falacies are widely excepted as ideological fact. With a shift in public dialogue - issues that were once mainstream, but are now seen as 'leftwing' can return to being mainstream. Additional issues can be introduced without being immediately dismissed. This, is a very long-term project. Support progressive media. Support progressive think tanks. Support progressive publishers. Take the discourse back - and the rest gets much easier.

[chiburb]

39. Beautiful post...

Only one quibble:

I wouldn't list "take back the national dialogue", especially on economic issues, a long-term project. I think that should start in THIS campaign. I suspect the people are a little more sophisticated on matters economic than they were even 3 years ago. At least I hope so...

[salin]

54. agreed. long-term as it to really change the dialogue

as so that... "hey some of DKs ideas are new and refreshing"... rather than... "that guy's ideas are from another planet!".. to get there will take a long-term sustained effort. The right didn't transform the public psyche overnight.

But you are right it has to start now - or we delay ever getting there.

[info being]

42. Great post. Another, simple way to say it is....

Keep fighting the good fit. But plug your nose and vote for Kerry on election day. That's what I'll do.

[salin]

55. Not my point... just holding the nose isn't enough

to do much but shut down the bushcrowd.

give him a congress - and I think he will do better than Clinton. But will still be working from a center-left framework - as that is where the public, who votes for congress, resides.

midterms (06) and relection(08) give him a congress with a stronger, left leaning base in a democratic house... and I think we can get some real work done.

But the real trick - is changing public discourse. Folks used to think Rush Limbaugh was a raving nut. Now many - of the same type of people - accept his "ideology" as a given. Change the public dialogue, how the media covers stories, etc. And suddenly a Kucinich isn't seen by much of the population as a bit "out there" but rather a little left.. with some interesting new ideas. It is only in the realm of seeing the world as scripted by Sean Hannity, that Kucinich sounds to be some raging leftist.

So even if you don't like Kerry - vote... but also start working on these other areas - get progressives to congress. Get progressive ideas back into the mainstream as primary ideas rather than a treatment given by newscasters as something odd and fringe.

When did religious fundamental shrieking harridans who often show up on CNN, MSNBC and Fox - become "mainstream", with token liberals showing up only on occaision as if they are some sort of rare oddity?

[Blue_Roses]

56. well said!

we need more like you speaking out:) Makes so much sense for those of us who see the future rather than the present. This isn't about just electing Kerry, rather what's going to happen in the future--the waay off future.

[Vladimir]

4. This is the crux I think

Beating Bush – the new Reagan – would be an enormous psychological victory for the left, and a huge defeat for the reactionary right.

All I can say is indeed. I also sympathise with people too fed up to work from within, and I don't necessarily agree with all the points in your article, but that one hits the nail on the proverbial. Justice must be done, but it must also be seen to be done. And to a lot of people, especially in Europe, Bush is the embodiment of what the rights stands for. This time, we are all playing for keeps. Time to send the wanker back to his ranch...

V

[chiburb]

5. I agree, and the sentence BEFORE the one you posted

Is true also: "But just to repeat the obvious: Nothing (and I mean nothing) is possible until the conservative death grip on power is broken."

[Vladimir]

7. its one of the reasons

why here in Britain, I think people should still support Labour in the upcoming general election. Despite everything, it is still easier to push for progressive change with a centrist government than a centre right one, although I accept freely that this is not obvious.

None of this means that the left shouldn't throw its weight about but it should pick its fights. Moving a touch to the left is preferable to standing still. At the same time, it is also important to note that the election is not the whole fight. Indeed, in many ways, it is only after you win the election that the real fight starts.

V

[chiburb]

9. You make an excellent point:

"Indeed, in many ways, it is only after you win the election that the real fight starts."

That's why I think that all these flame-bait threads and drive-by postings should come AFTER BushCo is sent packing (or frog-marching to the Hague). For me it's "keep you eye on the prize". The prize may be defective or need improving, but you don't even get the chance at a better one without winning THIS contest.

[Vladimir]

10. frog-marching to the Hague

If only...

V

[info being]

21. How is Kerry not a Conservative death grip?

I don't understand. Is he going to get us out of Iraq? Is he going ot make sure we have healthcare for our children? Is he going to withdraw from the WTO?

Exactly which death grip is he going to get us out of? I'm serious. I want to understand how things will be different with Kerry? Will he just be more effective in fooling people about the same agenda?

[chiburb]

24. You're in the wrong thread...

This one is to discuss the article and points it makes, not post drive-bys at Kerry. There are PLENTY of those threads on this board...

[info being]

27. So you can't give me one good example when I ask you very simply?

One example of something important that would change if Kerry is President. I haven't seen it in the other threads.

[Vladimir]

29. in my judgement

A Kerry presidency will mean 4 years without new invasions and occupations. I may be wrong on that, but its a debatable point. I don't think its very debatable that 4 more years of Bush will lead to new invasions.

V

[info being]

33. Thanks for the honest answer.

So the pro-Kerry platform is: vote for me and there may not be any more illegal wars at least while I'm in office but there may be we'll just have to see because my record shows that I really can't be trusted either way.

Yup. I'm on board.

[chiburb]

37. And thanks for another drive-by...

Like I said in the OP, I respect the majority of your minority. And I'll ask YOU again: why are you in this thread?

[info being]

41. No you don't. Your respect is merely lip service.

This is the Democratic UNDERGROUND. I originally came to this board because I thought it was a place for those outside of the mainstream Democratic Party. I won't ask why you're here because it is none of my business.

The drive-by stuff is cute, but only goes so far.

[chiburb]

43. Clearly we have a miscommunication: What respect?

I merely invited you to take your candidate bashing to another thread. There are many to choose from, and I don't understand why you insist on posting in this one, which is clearly intended for just the opposite.
Stay, go, but be aware that your's are the types of posts that cause people like me to ignore the radical fringe (whether it's left or maybe(?) right). On edit: I apologize to the radical fringe that actually took the time to post their ideas and thoughts in this thread. My last "shot" was not intended for you, and I trust you'll see that.

[Vladimir]

58. well you don't have to be

I am not trying to hard sell you because I am not a Kerry fan as such. I don't like Kerry. But I positively hate Bush. That's the difference.

V

[Vladimir]

26. because

he is not going to be seen as such by most people. Sadly, perception matters a hell of a lot.

V

[Iverson]

11. Consider the Log Cabin Republicans ...

There is a group working to change their party from within. What kind of success do you say that they're having?

I understand the logic of the Popular Front Argument. However, isn't that exactly what the situation of the Democratic Party was before the ascendancy of the DLC in the 1980s? How many decades of moving in the wrong direction suffices before it becomes reasonable to say that a different strategy is called for to get the Democratic Party to move to the left?

[chiburb]

12. Yep, the LCR's sold their souls...

A PERFECT example of soul-selling. As for the Dems, it WAS the party moving to the left after the '68 convention that got Nixon re-elected, and put Reagan in for 8 years. Yes, the backlash created the DLC and a perception that there's no difference between the parties. But after 3 years of BushCo isn't it obvious that there IS a difference? That there's a better chance of effecting positive/progressive change under Kerry than Bush? Hell, 4 more years of this and I WILL become a Canadian!

[Iverson]

15. about 1968 ...

I realize that what you said is a truism around here, but you must realize that Humphrey pissed off the Kennedy and McCarthy supporters by being Johson's hand-puppet on VietNam, and he didn't need to do that. He lost a very close election, alienating the activist base of the party.

The no-difference argument is not one that I'm now making or have ever made. It was a bit of campaign hyperbole from Nader in 2000 that is usually the only thing that angry Democrats choose to recall about it.

[chiburb]

20. re about 1968...

We're in total agreement there, but looking at the same thing from 2 different perspectives:

You say Humphrey alienated the activist base. Absolutely! But the reason he lost a "very close election" is because the purist/activists took their ball and went home instead of holding their noses and voting for HHH. And that is exactly what I'm afraid of in 2004, and the purpose of the original post. As in Kiahzero's example of the CC (vs LCR), they had/have an easier fight to move rightward. You have an easier move leftward from the Democratic Party than you do from a 3rd party or by staying home and giving BushCo another 4 years.

As for grassroots Dem vs Green, I'd be happy to vote for a Green mayor, councilwoman, senator, whatever. As long as that person was a clear-cut improvement over the incumbent or alternatives. For example, I can't wait to vote for Barak Obama in Illinois on Mar. 16 (US Senate). A true progressive that represents ME perfectly. If he were Green instead of Dem, he'd have my vote.

[IrateCitizen]

50. How you can ignore the social dynamics of '68 is beyond me!

My God, do you realize how much things changed in this country in less than a decade from 1960-1968? Do you realize that the primary strategy of Nixon (as written by Kevin Phillips) was to tap into the outrage of white southerners against the Democrats who gave in to those "uppity blacks"? Are you completely ignoring the incredible backlash against that in your analysis?

Things in 1968 were much different than they are today. It had nothing to do with "not enough people holding their nose and voting for HHH" and a lot more to do with an impression of a lot of people around the country that things were rapidly spinning out of control.

[chiburb]

51. Who's ignoring the social dynamics?

I'll never forget them.

The discussion was about the progs/activists vs. HHH. Nobody mentioned MLK or Bobby either. Yep, LBJ and civil rights were the germination of today's neocons. No argument about that, but to say "It had nothing to do with "not enough people holding their nose and voting for HHH" is dead wrong.

And yes, MANY in this country were of the belief that things were spinning out of control...

[kiahzero]

13. Better Example: Christian Coalition

The problem with the LCR is that they're trying to move their party towards the left, when their party exists on the right. They have to fight all that inertia. The Christian Coalition, on the other hand, just had to work to make the party of the right more right.

Similarly, we should follow the model of the CC (shudder) to move the party of the left further left. Build the leftist party back up from the ground, rather than trying to do it from the top down.

[Iverson]

16. That is a better example.

What I'd like to see is a clear argument that explains why at the grassroots level the choice of Democratic Party is better than the choice of Green Party or some other third party. The mainstream parties have ways of ignoring voices perceived to be on the fringe. The Republicans pander to the CC and give them a symbolic sop every now and then. The Democrats don't even do that for their lefties.

Is there something about your follow-up that I'm not getting?

[kiahzero]

17. Yes

It's far easier to take over the Democratic Party from the inside to attempt to build a new majority party. Destroying the Democratic Party and replacing it with a new, leftist party is highly unlikely: you'd need not only to build a third party with considerable support, but you'd also need the Republican party to be weakened enough to make your power grab. It may not even be that easy; IIRC, every time a third party has garnered a significant portion of the vote, it actually forced the political center in the opposite direction (someone with far more knowledge about US history put together a list, once... may have to search for it).

Besides the difficulty of building up a third party, there's the simple idea of political inertia. People are comfortable with the idea of Republicans and Democrats. It's easier to simply change what they stand for (remember when Republicans were sane?) than to create a new party from whole cloth and get people behind you.

The reason that Democrats don't throw the leftists a bone every now and then is because we haven't infiltrated the party to the same extent that the CC has infiltrated the Republicans. There's also a tendancy among some idealists on the far-left to not be there when they're needed; the Republicans know that the CC will reliably back them up so long as they play the game correctly. I don't think that the Democrats can say the same thing.

[Iverson]

31. so far so good, but ...

Your case is sober and sound as far as it goes, yet I am also taking into account other things.

First, I certainly do not want to "destroy" the Democratic party. I do not believe that adding lefty voices to the discussion destroys anybody.

Right now, right this minute, my voice is welcome in the Green Party. Now look around you. Do you think that my voice is really welcome in the Democratic party? Answer me honestly.

Cheers.

[kiahzero]

38. In some places, your voice is welcome

In others, not so much.

To be brutally honest, the Greens at this point will accept a lot of voices - they NEED them. Should the Green party grow, would people like me (socially far-left, fiscally center-left) have a voice?

As for not destroying the Dems, in FPTP voting, you only have two main parties. If you want the Greens to grow, either the Republicans or the Democrats have to go.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Rebuild the DNC from within?

Ok, there are people who tried that for the last 40 decades. Is it working yet?

Well, given that neither Kucinich or Dean (or Sharpton) won the nomination, I guess we the answer to that.

I'll back Kerry, but I'd like that election reform in return. Let's start with an election holiday, ranked voting ballots and verifiable voting machines. Then we can move into clean elections. And finally, let's move on to proportional representation in the House.

Will it happen overnight? No. CAN it happen in the long run? Yes. We are stagnant just now, but we (our nation) has made improvements to the system before so we can do it again.

[chiburb]

35. Now THAT's a positive response!

"Will it happen overnight? No. CAN it happen in the long run? Yes. We are stagnant just now, but we (our nation) has made improvements to the system before so we can do it again."

Thank you.

[kiahzero]

40. Agreed

I think we need to work on building progressive bodies in local and state politics, and grow from there. One of these days, I'm going to have the time to do research on exactly how the CC took over the Republican party - I know they essentially took over local governments, and then started to take over the state legislatures, and from there were able to get their stooges into power. I'd love to figure out how to work with that model in our party, so that progressives can get better representation.

One thing that progressives can do, starting today, is learn to recognize the political wink. RWers caught it when Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism"... I don't think that some on the far-left are willing to do the same.

[charlie]

44. They got a running start by taking over churches

like the Southern Baptists, who used to be a moderate to liberal bunch. Instant multi-regional networks, receptive butts in pews every week, and religious television activism were a mighty boon to the Republican machine.

Bush may have given his nutjob faction a "compassionate conservative" wink, but he then tromped off to Bob Jones University to shore up his bona fides, the equivalent of which I couldn't imagine a Democrat doing.

[kiahzero]

45. Going to Bob Jones was a mistake

It cost him moderate support. If he had stuck with the 'winks', he probably could have won the election without stealing it.

This is why I hope for a two-person only race. As I stated in a thread when Nader came in, Kerry could face a pincer attack, where he can't dodge left or right. So long as it's just Kerry and Bush, Kerry can frame the election as "Centrist vs. Right-Winger," which is the best way to win a general election. If Nader is a serious force this year, it'll look more like "Far-Left-Winger vs. Left-Winger vs. Centrist," which is advantageous for Bush.

[charlie]

47. Hopefully...

Nader will do as he says (I know, I know, he said he wouldn't campaign in swing states last time) and primarily lay into Bush this time around. IF he does that, then Kerry will enjoy the freedom to not worry so much about appearing "too liberal", plus he'll have someone hammering Bushco with very specific charges (much like Perot did to Poppy) so he can stay above the fray. You never know, Ralph might turn out to be an avenger for progressives and Democrats this year.

[chiburb]

46. Yeah, kinda hard to fire up the bridge club...

Jeez, I can't even think of a Dem equivalent to the churches or BJU you mention. Book club? Library boards? Hardly the masses...
Maybe truthout should sponsor a Nascar?

:-)

[Ficus]

49. NASCAR

Maybe truthout should sponsor a Nascar?
this is the funniest thing I've read all day...thank you.

[info being]

22. We have to be as critical of Kerry as we are about Bush...

after the election, of course. I fear that won't be the case. People will go back to sleep.

[chiburb]

25. Another drive-by?

Thx for your contribution...

[info being]

28. Sorry, just looking for some substance

All of this fluff was getting a bit stuffy. I'm asking you plain and simple to predict one thing important to progressives that would change under Kerry and you refuse to address it.

I've noticed Kerry behave the same way. This post might be deleted, but this behavior is FUNDAMENTAL to the problem.

Oh, and it isn't a drive-by. I'm still here waiting for an intelligent response.

[jonnyblitz]

14. I am radical fringe leftist whatever. I am already onboard.

Popular Front all the way for me.. I just want Bush out for now. I will become a purist later....

[cryofan]

23. Fund lefty Dems and use freeway/road blogging signage for lefty ideas

The only way to democratize the USA is to hope for a depression and then to fund lefty candidates to run as Dems. Also, take to the heavily traveled roads and freeways with homemade signage that espouses lefty ideas.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Just because it seems impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't try

This country has made about-faces on many subjects. Election reform could be one of them.

[info being]

32. Exactly. You don't open a negotiation by caving.

You hold ground and expect the other party to meet you half-way. That hasn't happened. Kerry is not bending to ANY of the issues we feel strongly about.

[youngred]

52. He will get my GE vote, but not my primary vote

mainly because he isn't Bush...kinda sad because he was the first candidate I backed.

[John_H]

53. The one-percenters' problem isn't Kerry. It's that

only one percent of Amercans agee with their authoritarian agenda.They should decide whether or not they want a voice in the Kerry administration,or if they'd rather go ask fidelity ralph.

[Polemonium]

57. It sounds good, certainly the kind of dialaogue we need

This kind of discussion could help get more of the progressives etc. to support Democrats again, but I think this kind of thing only happens if both sides let it happen. This article does a good job pointing out what the progressive thinkers could do to form a more perfect Democratic Party. However, it makes no mention of the need for the Democratic leadership to set a place at the table for this kind of potential active member. Replace Terry with Dean, well I don't see that happening but it certainly would give progressives a place at the table. Create a progressive committee within the DNC, set up like Democrats Abroad. This way they would have a fist full of delegates say 10 to 20, and they could have independent meetings while falling under the Democratic umbrella. Move-on is currently doing some amazing things, but it's distance from the DNC means that Move-on does not help the DNC in the long run. Imagine supporters of Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton working hard within the party. That would be an amazing thing. Unfortunately, right now most of those folks have let their energy for Democrats fade. Most are still ultimately going to vote Democratic, but most of that time and money is going to other places. Can the Democrats really afford to turn their backs on these people, it really wouldn't take much to keep them involved.