Some Grover Norquist-style arm-wrenching is what Progressives need too.

[Bonobo]

To translate OWS into meaningful change at the polls, what can we do?

That's what I was thinking when I heard 60 minutes7 piece on Grover Norquist and his "no tax increase" pledge that he has forced Conservatives to sign.

For 18 years, he has managed to (re) brand the Republican party as a party that will not raise taxes and he has managed to keep pledge-signers (almost all Repubs) on message and on that principle.

We need a version of that for Progressive ideology. we need someone to twist some arms, make them sign some pledges and threaten them with being booted when they abandon andy betray OUR Progressive values.

What would be in the pledge? That is the question that we can answer through discussion in a place like DU (or other Progressive sites).

But before this election sneaks up on us and we are forced to choose either side which, frankly, don't seem very interested in standing up for what the movement represents, we need to FORCE/TWIST/COMPEL them to listen to the people who have only recently found their voices and are now hollering.

A vote for do-nothing Democrats when they have promised nothing and done nothing, is a wasted vote. They must be held to a promise, a pledge, to redouble their commitment to serving the needs of the 99% and not to themselves and their post-Congress careers as lobbyists and board members.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

2. Since it is only the fulcrum of the arm that is the OWS, it could be anyone.

A leader that has the creds to be accepted by the OWS could be enough of a spokesman to wield that threat that is needed to get Democrats to act like Democrats.

I don't see why not.

The power has shifted. A new weapon is in the arsenal. It needs to be picked up and wielded against those that have sold us up the river.

[mazzarro]

3. I do agree 100%

I think some liberal should distill down liberal principles to a short list of principles that need to be pushed. We have to also try to come up with catchy phrases such as "we are the 99%" and others based on the distilled liberal principles. Whomever we choose to play this role has to be dogged, and unyielding in pushing for adherence to the liberal pledge.

[vi5]

4. You're right. But with our current gutless leaders....

What would happen is you'd have a high profile progressive leader stand up and make some demands of Dems, the Dems would go against what they say and then go running with their drooling tongues out to David Brooks, Richard Cohen, and Fred Hiatt and say "See!!! I sure did punch those hippies, didn't I? Love me, daddy!!!!! Give me your approval!!!" since that seems to be all that they give a shit about.

Until a high profile group such as unions decide to withhold their money or their support, it's just not going to happen.

[SomethingFishy]

5. Disagree.. Completely...

Grover Norquist twists arms by threatening to withhold lobbying money and campaign contributions. We don't need someone on our side extorting people. What we need is to get private money out of campaigns. We need serious financial reforms in Congress and the Senate. We need the elected leaders to follow the same rules as everyone else.

We need to make it harder to buy a fucking politician is what we need to do.

[Bonobo]

6. They use money because they don't have 99% people. we would use votes, not money.

That is our strength. Money is THEIR strength.

[jaxx]

7. I don't want Democrats signing any pledge.

Why would they want to echo the GOP?

[Bonobo]

8. Because it has served the GOP well as a tool to demand proper accountability.

Just because a jerk uses a jack to fix a flat tire doesn't mean you should try to lift it up without one.

[jaxx]

10. Are you sure you know what you are asking for?

Purity. I think it's wrong.

[Bonobo]

11. You say "purity", I say accountability to some principles we agree on.

is there a problem with that?

[jaxx]

13. I have no problem with principles.

I do have a problem with a pledge, it's like coercion.

[Bonobo]

14. Yes, but to be honest, all voting and demanding positions from politicians in return is a form

of coercion. same deal.

[jaxx]

15. I've never felt coerced to vote.

I don't think it's the same deal at all. It's taking someone and telling them that sign this pledge and I own you.

We can demand till hell freezes over, but until people realize that one person does not make the laws or write the legislation and start working together.....here we are.

[Bonobo]

18. No one is talking about coercing people to vote, but coercing pols to follow principles.

Was asking leaders to sign the constitution which established certain principles coercion or fascism>?

[jaxx]

29. Are you calling the Constitution a pledge?

Interesting.

[jaxx]

30. Dupe

[Bonobo]

31. Sure. It's a word. All words carry some degree of innacuracy and are open to interpretation though.

[jaxx]

32. I can agree with that.

But I can't agree that the Constitution equals Grover-type pledges.

[Bonobo]

33. If I had not said "Grover Norquist" and instead couched it in some other language...

I wonder if you would still find it so objectionable.

What if I had said we should ask Democrats to agree to hold firm to a list of principles that we considered to be our hardcore, baseline defining principles or face the threat of losing a primary?

After all, such a threat ¥ always exists anyway.

I am only suggestint hat we make that threat more palpable by demanding that they reiterate their positions that support the 99% and then we -in an organized manner- HOLD them to those principles.

My language was a bad choice because many are so used to black and white divisions that naturally my choice of phrasing set people's teeth on edge.

[jaxx]

34. I would find it objectionable with or without Grover.

Asking them to hold firm on principles would be good, I can respect that. Having them sign a pledge in blood (yeah I know, but that's what it says to me) takes away any integrity that person has. It says you're a liar unless I get you to sign this and can hold it over your head. I'd tell you (hypothetically) to piss off.

It may just be me, but I have a hard time doing black and white. Life and circumstances get moved aside when the only alternatives are dictated.

[Bonobo]

35. OK, I gave the argument my best shot. Nice to share thoughts with you, Jaxx. nt

[jaxx]

37. You too! I enjoyed our conversation.

Thanks.

[Turbineguy]

9. Maybe

But that fucking Grover Norquist should be stood up against the wall and shot.

[Bonobo]

12. Maybe.

still it annoys me that at least Republicans stand firm on their positions no matter how fucked up they are.

[liberal N proud]

16. Fascism is not in our DNA

We couldn't force that type of loyalty from anyone because as liberals and Democrats we allow people to make up their own minds and do not rely on one message maker to tell us what to think.

[Bonobo]

17. It is fascist to demand that representatives represent us and not the corporations that purchase the

[liberal N proud]

19. The fascism lies in the way they all do what one person tells them to

The whole fucking party falls in line and does what Grover Norquist says including the base.

It is just not in the cards for the left, we are not the type to force others to follow our views.

Not saying we don't need some sort of fall in line with the principles of the people wouldn't be a good thing, just that it is not something that would work.

[Bonobo]

20. I hear what you are saying loud and clear, but something big must be done

and short of starting a 3rd party which I don't think is in the cards due to institutional resistance, I can't imagine how real change can come about...

[liberal N proud]

22. Either party would crush a third party

It would threaten the system they have set up for themselves.

Our whole system has become overly corrupt and we just need to completely clean the government from top to bottom. We will lose a few good ones along the way but they all must go.

[Bonobo]

That is what I am saying.

So to clean up our party, I think we need to force them to refocus on the principles that use to define us.

How can we do THAT?

That is why I suggest a pledge and some fucking arm-twisting.

It was stupid of me to invoke the scumbag, Grover's, name because I see it has caused a knee-jerk response.

[moondust]

21. Meh.

The leverage behind the Norquist pledge is apparently the threat of a primary challenge and/or big money donors. I don't know if many Democratic voters would go for that kind of hardball coercion. Soulless Republicans, on the other hand, love the savage use of deadly force so they have no problem with it.

[Bonobo]

23. The threat to withhold a vote is ALWAYS "coercion". This would just be organized coercion.

If the 99% really are being fucked en masse, what is wrong with organizing a voting block based on some agreed on principles.

Think of it as a "platform".

Think of it as similar to what a union does when organizing.

Pulled apart we have no power to fight cop orate money.

We need focus and a to shine a laser on the politicians and their action and inaction.

[moondust]

27. That can all be done without pledging allegiance

to anybody or anything other than this:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[Bonobo]

28. And yet we do not see anything but a steady creep to the right over the last 30 years.

So that suggests to me that we are being pulled to the right by the fact that the Conservatives have steadily been thrusting in that direction while we have been meandering.

[moondust]

36. True.

Though I think that has more to do with the growing wealth and power of deregulated corporations over that 30-year period as well as the decline of union membership and the growing influence of big money on the political process, none of which a serious politician could ignore. Some Democrats got sucked into the big money game whether they liked it or not.

[Gold Metal Flake]

24. The new progressive leaders will come out of OWS.

And they will be in the form of progressive candidates for office in local elections all around the country.

[Bonobo]

26. I hope this is true! nt

[BrendaBrick]

25. "A vote from do-nothing Democrats

...when they have promised nothing and done nothing, is a wasted vote. They must be held to a promise, a pledge, to redouble their commitment to serving the needs of the 99% and not to themselves and their post-Congress careers as lobbyists and board members."

Must be held to a promise, a pledge...

Hmmmm - didn't they do that already? From what I understand/postulate (and I could very well be wrong) didn't every one of our public SERVANTS make an oath of some kind before taking office? And wouldn't said oath be enforceable by law if they fail to live up to it...maybe? To the letter?

Just sayin'...I don't know all the ins and outs here...(could be a varied state/local issue) but it just seems to me that there ought to be SOMETHING legally binding here, some kind of obscure loophole which would make their collective in decisions clearly unlawful...it would seem to me ~ somewhere...somehow. ~

Whereby the offense of extortion (individually or as a whole given their $$$$$$$ contributors) might come into play?

I dunno. Pretty much grasping at straws...

Maybe someone else here could enlighten me on this.

Or maybe reverse treason whereby not one individual or group plotted to take down the government...but in fact, quite the other way around.

Reverse treason...kind of makes sense ~

On edit....Hey! I '+1' and nothing. What gives here????? Geesh.