Why Support the Democrats?

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/1/1/13427/89535

Why Support the Democrats?

by Steven D
Fri Jan 1st, 2010 at 01:04:27 PM EST


I'm a progressive critic of the lackluster (to put it kindly) efforts of the Democrats over the past year in fighting Republican obstruction and carrying through on the programs and promises they campaigned on in 2008 to turn out the vote and obtain the large majorities in Congress they now enjoy. Some "progressives" as disappointed as I have have called for opposition to the Democrats over various legislation, including the inadequate health care reform bills up for consideration. Others have gone so far as to suggest a "boycott" or stay home from the polls approach to the 2010 elections.

Much as I am frustrated with the Democrats in Congress, I believe that approach by progressives would be a terrible mistake. What follows are the reasons why I've come to this conclusion.

Here's my quote of the day, to set the table as it were for the argument I'm going to make. It comes from an Iranian Fundamentalist Cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of Iran's Guardian Council, which supervises all elections in Iran, among other powers it exercises. The quote comes in response to renewed unrest in Iran, and the declaration by opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, that he does not fear death as a martyr.

During Friday prayer services in the capital city, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a fundamentalist cleric who heads the powerful Guardian Council, called protesters “flagrant examples of corrupt on Earth” and effectively called for them to be executed as “in the early days of the revolution.”

Wouldn't it be horrible to be governed by fundamentalist religious nuts who consider anyone who opposes them corrupt and who are more than willing to kill those who oppose their vision of of society ruled by God's law? And you wonder why we on the left here in America (and by left I mean anyone who doesn't swear allegiance to Sarah Palin) makes such a big deal about the secretive society of politicians and religious leaders known as "The Family" who also have some grand designs of their own regarding a government of the Godly, and only for the Godly, as they define them.

snip//

The American media are quick to condemn the brutality of the religious extremists who govern Iran. Yet these people differ from the religious extremists in our own country in only one essential regard: they have control over the government of their country. Imagine what would happen if the Christian extremists in our land ever acquired that same power. We already know that many of these power mad individuals who espouse the most virulent and hateful form of Christianity have assumed control of much of the current Republican Party infrastructure at both the local and national levels.

That should be all you need to do to realize that as bad as the Democrats have been (and you know I have been more than critical of their failures both before and after Obama became President), abandoning support for them in the upcoming election cycle in 2010 is not a viable option. Unless you want the Rick Warrens or Doug Coes (or their lackeys) of the Christian Right in control of this nation's fate. For that is what will happen if we stay away from the polls and let the pied pipers of Fox News and all the crazies in the GOP lead their deluded tea bagging followers to increase the representation of Republicans in the Senate and the House.

Remember, when the Weimar Republic fell, the Nazis controlled only 30% of the Reichstag. But that was enough, with the help of their conservative allies, to stall effective legislation that would have prevented the collapse of a Democratic country intyo tyranny and dictatorship and fascism. We may not like a lot of the Democrats who represent us in the House and Senate. We may be disappointed by the performance of the Obama administration in rejecting or failing to actively promote much of the progressive agenda many of us believe is necessary to return this country to prosperity. We may be severely disappointed that the bitter, illegal and ineffective decade long wars that George Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld instigated are still being pursued by this administration.

But when you look at the makeup of the other major political party in this country, and the insane beliefs systems of many of its leaders, the only conclusion that a rational person can draw is to fight even harder. Fight harder for progressive policies. Fight harder to win the public relations battle. Fight harder to convince the White House to adopt the programs and legislative goals that most Americans want to see passed into law.

And that means we must also fight harder to elect Democrats, even ones we may not like very much. Why? Because the alternative is a recipe for chaos and stagnation and history teaches us that those conditions increase the potential that any nation will cease to be governed by the Rule of Law and fall into the hands of despots with radical beliefs. Beliefs that will not only destroy "our freedoms" but end up killing many, many innocent people, both here and abroad.

The Democrats are a deeply flawed political party. The Republicans, however, harbor within their ranks a theocratic despotism based on the most violent and ugly interpretation of Biblical scripture. Based on those facts, the decision to continue to elect Democrats, and to work with and for change within the Democratic party is an easy one.

[NJmaverick]

1. Very solid article!

:fistbump:

[liberal N proud]

2. I sure as hell couldn't support the GOP!

No way, now how. Even if hell froze over.


I feel that supporting Democrats offsets at least one asshole in the GOP side hopefully enough to keep the bastards out of office and ultimately out of control.

[Armstead]

3. Here's novel idea -- Why not kick GOP Ass AND press for a better Demiocratic Party?

They are not mutually exclusive goals.

[Yavin4]

4. Progressives Need To Demonstrate That They Can Field Candidates That Can Win

Until they do that, then our only choices are: Corporatist Democrats or Insane-Religious-Start-Wars-In-A-Huff-Gut-All-Social-Programs Corporatist Republicans.

Progressives need to field candidates, either within the Dem party or as 3rd party, that can WIN elections for Governorships, Senate, and the House of Rep.

Let me emphasize the word, WIN. Not just run a candidate that gets 1% or 4% of the vote, because that changes NOTHING. Progressives need candidates that can WIN elections.

[Armstead]

5. You atre right -- One problem though....

the Rahmbo/DLC/Big Money machine of the Democratic Party doesn't like progressive candidates. They tend to do what they can to squish them.

[Yavin4]

6. I Disagree

One of the biggest lessons learned from the 2008 was the power of internet fundraising, which was significant. Getting small donations online makes it faster, easier, and cheaper to fundraise.

Also, if you really want the Rahmbo/DLC/Big Money to change their ways, raise more money on the internet for progressive candidates, and watch them squirm.

[Armstead]

8. Don;t get me wrong -- I support what you're saying

I just get a little frustrated that so many times in recent years Democrats who are not in the DLC mold get marginalized and/or pushed out by the corporate faction of the party.

Senator Ned Lamont?

[avaistheone1]

30. The DLC is funded by huge transnational corporations who seek candidates to mold in their interests.

Regardless I do think the progressives have done a great job of fundraising. Shout out to Firedoglake among others. :thumbsup:

It is near impossible for progressives to compete with the kind of corporate money the DLC receives.

[RBInMaine]

7. Then prove they can get elected as "progressive" independents. If not, then they should

damn well count their blessings and understand that we are a big tent regional nation and need a big tent Democratic party to be successful nationally. I say again, leftist "progressives" either need to prove they can win NATIONALLY in their own right, or do not incessantly bitch about the Democrats because the Dems are damn well the best you are going to get. Somehow I don't see Presidents Nader, Kucinich, Huffington, or Hamsher on the horizon anytime soon.

[Armstead]

11. There's a bit of a Catch 22 in your argument there

So those awful "progressives" should run as independents and win to prove to the democratic Party that a progressive can win nationally?

Like that would not make them subject to attack as soiurges and spoilers?

I hope I am misunderstanding what you are saying. That sounds weird for someone who claims that we should be grateful for a Big tent Democratic Party.

:crazy:

[elocs]

12. Yes, and they cannot be fringe progressives that are so far left

that they could only possibly get 1-4% in a primary. Solid, electable progressives need to be found to run and win. Even running in a third party a candidate can be elected if the voters consider that person to be viable and not just some kind of fringe protest or one issue candidate.

[last1standing]

9. This "We're all you've got" argument isn't working so well any longer.

The problem with this administration is that it has gone out of its way to insult and triangulate progressives out of the discussion. We were not given a seat at HCR, our human rights concerns have been ignored, our civil liberties complaints have been scorned.

Obama and his administration need to learn in the next few months that throwing bones out during an election isn't enough anymore. Either he supports those who put him where he is or he will lose his support in turn.

Yes, the Democrats may be all we've got, but lately, that isn't a whole helluva lot.

[emilyg]

13. +1

[last1standing]

15. Thanks.

[Yavin4]

16. What Else Do You Got?

What other non-corporatist candidate can WIN? Without one, you don't have a choice.

[last1standing]

17. You're countering my refusal to accept "what else do you have?" with a "what else do you got"?

I will attempt to push Obama and the Democrats to the left until the next election in 2010. If I don't feel my representative, senator, and/or governor candidate have proved themselves to be sufficiently working for my (yes "my) interests, I will vote Green. I will also encourage anyone I can to do the same.

That is the nature of politics. You either bring home the bacon for your constituency or they will find someone else who promises something better.

And yes, in 2012, if our president continues down this centrist path and continues to insult and ignore his base, then I will vote Green in the presidential election. In the time until then, I will work to make him understand that he needs to keep my vote. If he disagrees then he's free to keep going as he is. I'm only one vote, after all. Its not like about 4% of the population that solidly voted for him in 2008 is just as discouraged as I am, right? Even if they were, that'd only have brought his popular vote to 49%. And 4% in states like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Indiana means nothing, right?

I can only say that I think its a very big gamble the Democrats are playing when they triangulate us out of the picture. But then they're the smartest motherfuckers in the room so why should they worry.

[Yavin4]

18. Okay, Let's Run Through Your Scenario

You vote Green. You convince others to vote Green in 2012. There are two possible outcomes:

1) Obama wins re-election without your support. So, you're "pressure to move him to the left" will be forever meaningless, and the Democratic party establishment will see that they can win elections without your support.

2) Obama loses re-election, and the country gets a Republican corporatist as President. Thus, you're in the same position as you are now, and probably much worse. Meanwhile, the Democratic party establishment will interpret Obama's loss was due to his governing too far from left. They will work harder to move the party more to the middle instead of the left.

IOW, you don't have a choice because you don't have a progressive candidate that can WIN a national presidential election. Obama and his people do not fear you because you do not pose a serious threat to them. The best that you can do is tilt a close state to the Republican candidate, but even that is not nearly enough to move Obama more to the left because the Dem establishment would just move more towards the center to make up the loss.

Until progressives like yourself can field candidates that can WIN senatorial, congressional, and eventually presidential elections, then you're nothing but background noise.

[last1standing]

19. Let's go further, shall we?

I vote Green and convince my friends, etc...

1) Obama wins and we lose our ability to pressure him. If he hasn't moved by 2012, he isn't going to move when there's no threat of re-election to push him. That kind of makes "point one" useless, don't you think?

2: Obama loses and a republican get in so we're in the same situation. That's right, we're in the same situation because the Democrats aren't working for us, either. If the party establishment misreads the reason he loses so badly that they work to get someone even more conservative into office then they really don't deserve our support. They will continue to lose voters and then maybe the Green party will take over. That makes "point two" just as useless as "point 1".

As for the third point about fielding progressive candidates who can win, they can't win without votes so you're really pushing more toward supporting them, not less so.

You're not really good at this, are you?

[Yavin4]

23. I Will Address Your Responses

1) Obama wins and we lose our ability to pressure him. If he hasn't moved by 2012, he isn't going to move when there's no threat of re-election to push him. That kind of makes "point one" useless, don't you think?

Okay, I don't understand your point here. In 2012, you vote Green, and Obama wins. Thus, your non-support of him is meaningless, and that supports my earlier post when I asked, "What else have you got?". So far, you don't have anything else.

2: Obama loses and a republican get in so we're in the same situation. That's right, we're in the same situation because the Democrats aren't working for us, either. If the party establishment misreads the reason he loses so badly that they work to get someone even more conservative into office then they really don't deserve our support. They will continue to lose voters and then maybe the Green party will take over. That makes "point two" just as useless as "point 1".

So, your grand theory is that after Obama loses and the Democratic party becomes more conservative, by default, the Green party will grow because disaffected Democrats will move over to the Green party. You really believe that rank and file Democrats, living and suffering under Republican rule, are going to move to the Green party, which has not elected a single member of congress, nor a governor of a state, nor even polled higher than 3% in a presidential election. Is that your answer to the "What else you got" question?

Now, I notice that you ended your post with a snarky, personal attack at me. Which I believe just shows that in addition to your political immaturity, you cannot handle being out-debated. I won't engage in tit for tat insults, but I will leave you with this.

If you want to move Obama, Rahm, the congressional Dems, etc., you have to field candidates in either the Dem party or the Greens that can actually WIN elections. In all of your arguments, you failed to mention one progressive candidate that could defeat Obama in either the primaries or the general election. Not one.

[angee_is_mad]

21. Clarification please, part of his base

There are parts of his base who do not feel insulted by President Obama.

[Kaleva]

22. And yet, progressives overwhelmingly approve of Obama.

[OHdem10]

10. May I respectfully suggest that the RR has seeped into our party

The Abortion Issue in HCIR is still not settled.

[IndianaGreen]

14. We should only support those that support us, and no one else

If an elected official fights for the interests of the working class, we must support that official. If an elected official sides with the corporations against the working class, we must never cast a vote or give any financial aid to that official.

Our votes are to be won, they are never to be taken for granted.

[angee_is_mad]

20. Thanks for posting this

"The Democrats are a deeply flawed political party. The Republicans, however, harbor within their ranks a theocratic despotism based on the most violent and ugly interpretation of Biblical scripture. Based on those facts, the decision to continue to elect Democrats, and to work with and for change within the Democratic party is an easy one."

Enough said!!!

[lamp_shade]

24. Kick

[Hekate]

25. KnR Babylonsister.

[Yuugal]

26. Blah

"The Republicans, however, harbor within their ranks a theocratic despotism based on the most violent and ugly interpretation of Biblical scripture. Based on those facts, the decision to continue to elect Democrats, and to work with and for change within the Democratic party is an easy one."

Terra terra terra! Republicans will eat your babies! Vote for more Rahm-scams before it is too late!

So I should vote for corporate dems instead of the progressives because the republicans will be so much worse? If I didn't just live through 8 yrs of corporate republicon hell I might believe you. If Obama didn't keep so many of the Bush crooks and continue so many of the shrub's policies I might believe you. If Obama didn't pack his admin with goldman sachs corporate crooks and DLC asswipes I might believe you.

Stupak is what we get when we vote conservadem. No thanks. I don't owe anyone my vote. I owe it to myself to vote my conscience. Every time I vote for a conservadem like Obama I get more disappointment and on top of that I preclude the seat that person holds from going to a real progressive. It is better for our party if the R wins when the choice is between two corporatists. This way we get a choice in the following election between a Corporatist and the change I'd like to believe in. The way thing are now in 2012 we will get a choice between Obama's corporatism and some neocons and quite frankly there isn't much difference between them. Obama loves him some killing all over the globe, loves to give trillions to rich crooks, and shows no interest in worker's rights or civil rights. Plus he sends his minions out to attack us daily. I can get that crap from republicans, I see no need to vote for that.

The message discipline team would like all us progressives to fall in line and vote for their corporatists because they have a D in front of their name and that is just sooooooo much better......it's not.

In my district we have a DLC loser who hopes I will follow your advice in 2010. Afterall, we have nowhere to go right? Wrong. I'm not going to vote for him because that would be voting against my interests. I'm not going to stay home because that would punish all the progressive dems lower down the ticket. They do pretty well here in NY, at least until they want to go for a national seat and then the DLC snuffs them or makes sure the seat gets handed to a corporatist by appointment like Hillary or Gillabrand. Once the corporatist is in it is almost impossible to get rid of them because we don't actively vote them out. All that is about to change though.

Many of us are tired of being taken for granted and not only having our issues dismissed but having to endure the litany of insults that daily issues from the mouths of fucksticks like Rahm. The solution to this problem for progressives is obvious. MAKE SURE EVERY DLCer LOSES. Even if we have to vote for the repuke in the general election if our primary challenge fails.

Picture a race for dogcatcher that is split 50/50 between a DLC asswipe and a neocon. If I vote for the DLC I make sure the seat wont be in our hands until the next election and given how easy it is for incumbents to stay in office maybe not even then. If I stay home the race is 50-49 and maybe the DLC guy cons some old lady into coming out for hoax and corporate chains and the seat still isn't open for a progressive the next go around. If I come out and vote straight progressive except for the dogcatcher seat, it will be 51-49 and hopefully will get rid of the conservadem plus all the good people down ticket have a better shot.

Progressives need to make themselves heard in our own party before we try to take over the country. Voting the Rahm-scammers out is a great first step. Here is how I view your line from above:

The DLC, however, harbors within their ranks a corporatist despotism based on the most violent and ugly interpretation of the constitution. Based on this fact, the decision to refuse to elect DLCers, and to work with and for change within the Democratic party is an easy one."

[mstinamotorcity]

27. Personally i won't quit

until our goal is achieved. The other side is just not working for me.:wtf:

[freddie mertz]

28. So should we "fight hard" to re-elect Ben Nelson and Stinky Stupak?

I think not.

Next.

PS: Most times, when you feel compelled to play the Nazi card, your argument is already lost.

[IndianaGreen]

31. because if you don't, you will get Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is the apparatchiks' Emmanuel Goldstein to keep the rank-and-file in line!

[Vattel]

29. I agree, of course, that the Republicans are much worse

and there is a lot at stake. On the other side of the coin, some argue that if progressives in sufficient numbers only voted for progressive candidates, the Democratic party might actually move to the left. Do you disagree?

Also, I don't think raising the spectre of "theocratic despotism based on the most violent and ugly interpretation of Biblical scripture" is a good approach to making your case. It's just not in the cards.