By Barbara O'Brien -- This Thursday night Markos Moulitsas (along with Wynton Marsalis and Anna Burger) is being honored with a Justice Award from the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy in New York City. Read more from Jane Hamsher, here.
I realize there’s some ambivalence about Kos among leftie bloggers and blog readers. See, for example, Nick Bourbaki’s posts at Wampum, here and here. And there was snarking at Kos recently in a comment thread here at Unclaimed Territory, in a post discussing Ned Lamont’s challenge of Joe Lieberman’s Senate seat. Several commenters complained that Kos is more interested in electing Democrats than electing the best progressive candidates, who might be from a third party.
The house is on fire, in other words. Some of us think our first priority is to put the fire out any way we can. We can argue about what wallpaper pattern would look best in the master bedroom some other time.
If the Democrats can win back a majority in the House this November — or, even better, the entire Congress — the Dems will have some power with which to fight the Right. That doesn’t mean they will, of course; I expect we will need to apply pressure on a future Dem majority to be sure they use their subpoena power (which they don’t have as a minority) and conduct meaningful investigations to expose the Bushies and the extremist Right for the danger to America that they are. But a Democratic majority in even one house will curtail some of the Bush regime’s ability to steamroll over American rights and values any time it pleases.
I can't speak for Kos, but I support Democratic candidates in the November elections (most of ‘em, anyway) not because I believe they are always right or because I think a Democratic majority in the House will fix all our political problems. I admit that many Dems running for election in November are less progressive than I wish they were. I've complained about Dem spinelessness and Dem appeasement of the Bush White House as much as anyone. Even if we succeed in taking at least part of Congress away from the Republicans there will still be a long, hard fight ahead to restore America to anything approximating political health.
But a Dem majority would give us a better position from which to fight and a lot more ammunition to fight with. If we don’t take back part of Congress in November, it means two more years of having no power in Washington at all.
The Bushies can do a lot of damage in two years, folks.
Before and after the midterms, netroots activists should push hard to increase our influence among the Dems. We must deliver the message to the Democratic Party establishment that it’s time to stop dancing the Clinton triangulation two-step. If we can topple Joe Lieberman, the most egregious of the DINO Bush bootlickers, this would send a clear signal to the Dems that they must reckon with us, and that they can’t take our loyalty for granted. This is essentially the argument made by Kos and Jerome Armstrong in Crashing the Gate.
There’s a lot more to be done to make America safe for progressivism again, such as reform media so that our messages reach the public without being twisted by the rightie noise machine. Election reform, real campaign reform — all vital goals, and none will be easy to achieve.
But if the Dems don’t succeed in the 2006 midterms, prepare to kiss it all off. That’s reality. And another reality is that until we change the way we conduct elections — allow instant runoff elections, for example — progressive third party candidates will not only lose all but local elections, they will split the progressive vote and hand elections to Republicans. This has been happening in America since the first political parties emerged, which was while the ink was still drying on the Constitution. I do believe a pattern has been established; it's sheer foolishness to pretend otherwise.
Where does Kos fit into this? IMO Kos is more of an organizer than a blogger, but that’s OK. The netroots are a cornucopia of great bloggers, but great organizers are harder to come by. I don’t always agree with Kos, but I admire his ability to get in the faces of politicians and media and demand attention. The YearlyKos convention — which was fabulous, IMO, and if they have another one next year I’m already there — was a major step toward giving netroots progressivism real power in the flesh. I couldn’t have done it. I suspect most of us couldn’t have done it. But Kos did it, and he deserves the credit. So, I congratulate Kos for being honored by the Drum Major Institute. I wish him continued success, and I hope more bloggers step out from behind their monitors and follow his lead.
And if we keep fighting, the day will come when progressive goals will be achievable. Goals like providing health care for all Americans and a genuine commitment to reducing global warming will no longer be kept dangling out of our reach by the power of the Right. And I hope someday to have the luxury of choosing the best progressive candidate regardless of party. But that day is yet to come.
Last January I caught some flames with this post, in which I said that too much of the Left was “stuck in a 1970s time warp of identity politics and street theater projects and handing out fliers for the next cause du jour rally.” But for at least forty years — since I was old enough to pay attention to politics — I’ve watched earnest and dedicated liberals stand outside the gates of power and hand out essentially the same fliers for the same causes, year after year, decade after decade. And in most cases we’re no closer to achieving real change than we were forty years ago.
So I say that if in-fighting over ideological purity is getting in the way of having the power to enact progressive policies, then the hell with ideological purity. Speaking truth to power is grand, but let’s not forget the ultimate goal is to be power. Until we have power, all our ideas, and our idealism, are just dreams.
I believe one of the reasons we have been rendered into a minority is that too many lefties act and think like a minority; we’re perpetually out of power because that’s how we envision ourselves. So even though a large majority of the American public now agrees with us on Iraq, for example, somehow we’re the extremists, and the hawks — who dominate government and media — paint themselves as mainstream. Righties, on the other hand, maintain total faith that the majority of Americans are with them, even if poll after poll says otherwise. And that faith, however delusional, has empowered them.
We are the mainstream. We are the majority. But to take our rightful place in American politics and government we must start thinking like a majority and acting like a majority. It’s way past time to stop standing outside the gates of power handing out fliers. Kos is right -- it’s time to crash the gate.
Reading this post along with Glenn's update to A.L.'s worst law ever post I decided to do a snip and paste and sent DiFi an e-mail explaining exactly why I will be working against her with all my might for the next six years.
ReplyDeleteImmediately after the Yearly Kos I had a generally positive feeling about it, though I didn't participate and I'm not a Kossack. When the first criticisms of the deluxe Warner bash came up, I didn't join in. But when I started hearing the phrase "hair shirt Democrat" to describe people who had concerns about the event, I spoke up here and there.
ReplyDeleteWe've been ridiculing media people for "selling out for cocktail weenies" for some time now. So we should show at least a little vigilance that we don't go down that path ourselves.
Paul Wellstone was a guy who didn't go that route -- a hair-shirt Democrat, if you will. He actually tried to live on his measly six-figure Senatorial salary, and he did not set up his kids in cushy jobs. And Democrats still honor him, but almost none of them follow his example, which many Democrats secretly laugh at.
A fair number of present-day Democrats have explained that they're not really all that liberal, and some have even outed themselves as moderate ex-Republicans. And that's all fine. I'd much rather see you guys in office than the present hard rightists, and I plan to support all y'all, but the fact is that I'm not a moderate Republican. In happier times I'd be diasagreeing with you, but these are not happy times.
What we're getting is a feistier, much less corrupt version of DLC centrism, and that's fine. I accept that that's the best we're going to get for awhile, and possibly ever. The rightwing attack machine has won, and on;y about 18% of Americans identify themselves as liberals any more. Whether I want to or not, this is something I'll have to learn to live with.
But you know, some of us are still liberals. And when we realize that the Democrats plan to continue to run away from liberalism, the best we can come up with is a resigned realism.
So I wish you all the best. I can just imagine better -- though realistically speaking, I really can't.
Your "house on fire" analogy is apt, but here's the problem: for the past six years, the Dems have been standing next to the fire, holding firehoses. They may not be the best firehoses, or the most efficient; they may not even be able to do more than tamp down the fire's power. But they have those hoses. And for six years, while they watch the house burn to the ground, the Dems have been holding those hoses, shaking their heads and saying, "Boy, that fire sure is bad. I wish we could do something about it." Some have even been arguing that the fire really is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't hire a firefighter who'd shown that he'd stand by, hose in hand, while a house burned to the ground. So why would you hire the Dems?
Democrats plan to continue to run away from liberalism
ReplyDeleteThe Democratic Party was never pure in its liberalism. Until the 1960s the Southern Dems were famous for being the political wing of the Ku Klux Klan, for example. FDR had to compromise with southern Dems and allow discrimination against African Americans in New Deal programs in order to get southern congressmen to vote for the programs. That was wrong, but otherwise there might not have been a New Deal at all.
Dems in general became more liberal in the 1960s, especially after the worst of the Dixiecrats switched to being Republicans. The national political culture was more tolerant, sometimes even approving, of liberalism then.
And in the 1970s, in response to gains made by liberalism, some moneyed men of the Right began to build the conservative infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets that pulled the political culture to the Right and demonized the word "liberal." As a result, Dems have been running away from liberalism for at least 20 years.
Some of them may have been liberals once, but they and their consultants have accepted the conventional wisdom that being too liberal is a losing proposition. The fact that a few exceptional politicians, like Paul Wellstone, were able to keep their House seats anyway didn't persuade them otherwise. And in fact in many parts of the country Wellstone could never have been elected.
The demonization of the "L" word, and the fact that it takes obscene amounts of money to run for office in the Mass Media Age -- thereby sending Dems to ask for donations from the same corporations and special interests that give to Republicans -- has thoroughly corrupted politics and has just about destroyed even the pretense that what we've got is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."
My argument is that instead of looking to any politician or party to rescue us, we've got to work to rescue politics. I say we're going to be stuck in a loser's loop until we take steps to change the political culture itself. Electing Dems and taking back the House in November is merely a band-aid to mitigate the damage being done by the Right; by itself it barely amounts to a baby step. Yet it has to be done before we can take any more steps.
As far as the Warner party was concerned, I wouldn't call it "deluxe." I've been to swankier office Christmas parties. I don't see that it was any different from a candidate inviting voters to a big barbecue so he can shake their hands and give a stump speech -- a time honored tradition in American politics. I went to the party and enjoyed the snacks, booze, and the view, and came away with no more interest in Warner than I had before. I don't see what the big deal about the party was, except that some rightie bloggers tried to make a big deal out of it. Ignore them.
You wouldn't hire a firefighter who'd shown that he'd stand by, hose in hand, while a house burned to the ground. So why would you hire the Dems?
ReplyDelete1. Because there's no one else with any hope of winning elections; and
2. The goal is to throw the old Dems out and get some new ones.
The only other alternative is to give up and abandon the nation to fascism. I'm not quite ready to do that.
You wouldn't hire a firefighter who'd shown that he'd stand by, hose in hand, while a house burned to the ground. So why would you hire the Dems?
ReplyDeleteNo supeona power=no water in the hoses.
Dems are all you got. Third party is not viable. You got two parties to work with. Gonna take over the Republican one? Better get bizzy.
All I know is when the machine is grinding up everything, you best throw a monkey wrench in that sucker.
I would like to see the green party become viable, but thats for the future. Right now, Big Brother v2.31b is fixin to take over the hard drive. Whining and pity parties aint helpfull.
You show a good deal of faith in the Democratic party. The point has been made here frequently that the Dems are complicit in many of the more odious machinations of the Republican party. I think of the lack of response among Dem politicians to Feingold's censure resolution, indeed the unwillingness to jump on what polls show to be a potential winning issue for the Dems, and I'm not excactly hopeful that a Democratic congress will be much of a step forward. I'm no fan of Ralph Nader, and I think it's a slight exaggeration, but his argument that there's one party, the corporate party rings true to me.
ReplyDeleteWhy does everyone simply assume that nothing meaningful can be done? Why is everyone so cynical?
ReplyDeleteWe are saying that you can change the Democrats starting with giving vichy Joe the boot.
But why doin't you give us you wisdom O wise sage?
What can be done? That doesn't nvolve the dems or an AK47?
Please enlighten us.
This seems to have degenerated into a Green-vs-Dem fight.
ReplyDeleteDespite the pessimism of what I wrote above, I fully support the Democrats. I see no possibility that the Greens or any other third party will ever be effective. The American system is biased toward two and only two parties; at the national level, the only time a third (or fourth) party ever won, the Civil War broke out.
Greens and the like are highly critical of the Democrats, often for immediately persuasive reasons, but the third party record of futility has to be taken into consideration too.
You don't have to love or admire a politician or a party to support him or her. The demand for perfect candidates or for a perfect party was a self-defeating one.
The phrase "hair-shirt Democrats" just set me off. And frankly, I've never had a total stranger spend $50+ entertaining me, so that still seems pretty deluxe to me.
David, there's not much real uncertainty about what you proposed. It would be a fiasco and would come to nothing. If three small groups which don't agree about anything try to get together, you end up with a slightly-less-small group which splits sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteBarbara:
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for Kos, but I support Democratic candidates in the November elections (most of ‘em, anyway) not because I believe they are always right or because I think a Democratic majority in the House will fix all our political problems. I admit that many Dems running for election in November are less progressive than I wish they were. I've complained about Dem spinelessness and Dem appeasement of the Bush White House as much as anyone. Even if we succeed in taking at least part of Congress away from the Republicans there will still be a long, hard fight ahead to restore America to anything approximating political health
I think this is something like what conservative Elephants were saying to themselves in 1968 before electing Nixon.
I can deal with both Kos and the anti-Kos folks. I'm happy that they're both on my side. And I can also deal with the internal sniping. In the end, all these folks are on the good guys' team. As long as we remember that, we're cool.
ReplyDeleteShrug.
But I am certain that perpetuating the same pattern of behavior is not the answer.
ReplyDeleteDid you read my post at all? I specifically argued for not perpetuating the same pattern of behavior.
I think this is something like what conservative Elephants were saying to themselves in 1968 before electing Nixon.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone here is falling into the same fallacy that American politics is only about winning elections. I'm arguing that while we need to win elections, at the same time we've got to think beyond just winning elections.
We are the mainstream. We are the majority. But to take our rightful place in American politics and government we must start thinking like a majority and acting like a majority
ReplyDeleteOne of the things to be avoided (and I know I find it difficult) is to not alienate potential allies. I'm reminded of what happened a few weeks ago when you happened to write the post about religion. There are lots of conservatives who are against the war. There are a lot of liberals who are for it. There are a lot of conservatives who feel betrayed by Bush's fiscal policies. There are a lot of liberals who are just as happy to pass out the pork as anyone. It seems to me that what progressives and libertarians have in common is that they hold to their ideals, while it's the mushy middle who are just trying to sell out to the highest bidder.
I'm not sure what any of this says about strategy but I have 2 specific recomendations. 1: Don't set yourself up to be parodied. and 2: don't shit on people who can help.
As for a proposal, imagine this: Let's say that all the progressives and libertarians -- all the independent thinking non-partisans -- who populate this blogs and similar blogs banded together to support . . . oh, say, the Green Party . . . or participated in Unity '08 . . . or something brand new. Who is to say what the effect of such a coordinated movement away from the two-aprty duoploly would be? No, I cannot promise great results,
ReplyDeleteI can promise you will lose. Lose, lose, lose. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.
I'm not sure what any of this says about strategy but I have 2 specific recomendations. 1: Don't set yourself up to be parodied. and 2: don't shit on people who can help.
ReplyDeleteI agree.
As a libertarian leaning person who sees both parties as a threat to my inalienable rights and the principles of this country, I get depressed when I see everyone buy in to the idea that a 3rd party is never viable. 3rd parties are only not viable if you buy the shit the main 2 parties are selling.
ReplyDeleteI think most Americans are dissatisfied with their politcal choices, but choose to vote for the part that they percieve as closest to representing their values. Why not encourage every Right/Conservative voter to vote Libertarian Party, and every Left/Progressive to vote Green Party? Immediately, the corporate shills are removed, and the government that would be in place would represent the core values of the left and right. It would make for real debate on every issue, and probably more effective/practicle compromises on most issues.
Again, the only reason this doesn't happen is the voters (us) don't make it, we believe the 2 major parties when they claim 3rd parties are not viable (because they have no stake in making us believe that?) To paraphrase PJ o'Rourke, we may have a parliment of whores; but in a democracy, WE are the whores.
I see everyone buy in to the idea that a 3rd party is never viable. 3rd parties are only not viable if you buy the shit the main 2 parties are selling.
ReplyDeleteIf third parties have never been viable since the 1820s, when the first "third" party, the Anti-Masons, formed, then one suspects that as a general rule they are never viable, period.
Call me the not-Glenn Greenwald.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the problem is that picking democrats because they are democrats is not going to put out the fire.
Yes, but taking the House away from Republicans in November is the only viable option we have in front of us now. The only alternative is not taking the House away from Republicans.
At the same time, we have to reform the Democrats, the election process, the media, and change America's political culture to make it more habitable for liberalism. This is going to be a long struggle. The midterm elections are only a very tiny beginning.
I have one concern in the next election. That is seizing an opportunity to save the Republic from the authoritarian extremists who would turn it into a doomed Empire. If I have to vote for, in my case, Bob Casey, so that one of the cogs of that machine, Rick Santorum, is banished back to the nether regions, I'm all in. I say this as a, as Kos has described it, Libertarian Democrat, who vehemently disagrees with Casey on choice.
ReplyDeleteBut we can't afford two more years of unchecked power, solely concentrated in the hands of those who would destroy this Republic.
Swallow hard, and vote with your head.
I will say that there are exceptions. Lieberman is one. He is a quisling, who supports the power structure in place.
And frankly, I've never had a total stranger spend $50+ entertaining me, so that still seems pretty deluxe to me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's because I've been living in New York, where deluxe is WAY deluxe, the Warner party just didn't seem deluxe to me. Plastic glasses and guests in jeans do not add up to deluxe.
We have seem the false comfort of voting for third party candidates blow up in our face before. Does anyone here seriously believe that this country would not be in better shape if Al Gore had been elected in 2000? The votes that Nader siphoned from Gore allowed the election of Bush. Say all you want about the good fight, or that Gore should have won anyway. Bottom line, George Bush would not have been president. Cheney would not have been vice-president. The Project For a New American Century would have remained a fringe group with no real influence.
ReplyDeletethose kudos should go to Gina Cooper and her group of volunteers who did such an amazing job.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but without the community that Kos built, and the political contacts that Kos built, it wouldn't have been possible for Gina Cooper to organize anything.
Why do you 3rd Party Advocates treat the Democratic party as if it is some monolithic beast handed down to you from above? It is what its members make it. If its members make it more conservative than the Republican party, it would be - as indeed it has been in the past.
ReplyDeleteFace it, you have a 2 party system, and absent a constitutional amendment of some kind which vastly changed the conduct of US elections, 3rd parties are only ever spoilers. It is facile to think otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Isn't that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expected a different result? Nader in 2000 should have taught you. I mean, we can thank Perot for helping Clinton into office, but that just proves the point even more. 3rd parties just drain support from 1 of the big tent parties so the other wins.
Besides, even if you got your multi-party system, the Libertarians or the Greens would only have a small portion of house seats and likely never get the presidency. Do you somehow imagine the Greens are going to replace the Democrats? if they did, they'd look just like them shortly after.
The party is what its members make it, saying you don't like the democratic party is to say you don't like 50% of americans. Think you and your 2% of 3rd party voters can drag the other 98% of the country along into Green-topia or Libertopia? No. You'd have to convince a majority of them of your ideas first. At which point one of the big-tent parties would adopt them.
The small parties can only serve as germination of ideas. Full grown ideas that the population is ready for will only come from a big party.
Greenwald said:
ReplyDeleteI didn't write this post, and I don't know what else I can do to make it clear that it is guest posters who are writing the posts they write. They write their name at the top of each post and set it off with spaces, and their name appears again at the bottom of each post. And yet, I receive e-mail every day from people commenting other the posts by Barbara, A.L. and H.G. as though I wrote it - I even see those posts being credited to me on other blogs.
If anyone has any suggestions for how to make the actual author more prominent, I'm all ears.
dan -- good comments. I'd like to add that with our current campaign funding laws, even if a third party became viable in order to grow and win national elections it would be forced to accept "contributions" -- bribes -- from the same Big Money guys that fund the Dems and Republicans.
ReplyDeleteThe system that we have is self-corrupting. Throwing another party into the mix will not change that. That's why we have to stop fixating on just winning elections and work to change the system.
Last comment: Why do 3rd party types fixate on the presidency? Elect some mayors, state legistlators and such and get your ideas into practice. Stop trying to shove your ideas down on the country from above. People will care about libertarian or green policies and politicans when they see proof those things can improve their lives. They're not going to say "I like this libertarian stuff on paper, so I'll vote for one for president!"
ReplyDeleteYou have to take back your party before you can implement any meaningful change.
ReplyDeleteWe conservatives simply do not vote for leftist Elephants. With only a few exceptions like the Lincoln Chafee, we ran the so called Rockefeller Republicans out of the party.
The conservative agenda was never enacted until we did so.
The same thing applies to the left. So long as you keep voting for DINOs like Clinton and like it, you have no chance at all of enacting the changes you desire.
The DINOs will sell you out every time the way the RINOs do the conservatives.
Yes, a third party is the ideal. But no, now is not the time.
ReplyDeleteI was squarely on the other side of this argument in 2000, and I voted for Nader. I wasn't necessarily a big supporter of the Green Party, but a viable third party, ANY third party, is something we've needed for a long time. If the Greens has reached the magic 5 percent mark, they would have gotten matching funds for the next election. That's an important first step.
And I honestly thought there wasn't that much difference between the parties. Sure, Bush was clearly an idiot, but the rhetoric coming out of the camps wasn't all that different — compassionate conservatism and all.
Well, I was wrong, me and all the people who thought like I did. Not just wrong, SPECTAULARLY wrong. If Glenn has proved anything with this site and his book, it's that the people currently running the executive branch are straight up fascists, with a bunch of mealy-mouthed enablers filling out the legislative side.
I'm not exactly head-over-heels in love with the Democrats. But even if we accept that they're "craven, unprincipled opportunists" as David said, I'll take that over theocrats any day. We're not talking about bad and worse here. We're talking about "kind of bad" and "end of democracy as we know it".
This isn't exactly the first time we've heard "No, we can't promote a third party right now, this time it's different!" But if you don't think things actually are different now, you REALLY haven't been paying attention.
As I understand, both the Libertarian and Reform parties have had their own tiny financial scandals.
ReplyDeleteA partisan two-party system is what we've got. Occasionally at the local level an independent or third party candidate can get elected, but once in Congress they have to work with the party system.
There ar no good Republicans. The votes for Frist to lead the Senate and Armey (=Delay) to lead the House were by far the most important votes any Senator or Congressman made this year. The House and Senate leadership control what can happen and what can't happen. An ordinary Senator or Congressman not in a leadership position is almost as powerless as the average citizen. Chafee vote for Frist, and he can't be forgiven for that.
I think you should vote for individuals not parties, but this thinking always cracks me up--
ReplyDeleteThe votes that Nader siphoned from Gore allowed the election of Bush.
The idea that Nader cost Gore more votes than Lieberman is a lesson in entitlement and self delusion that seems to be ready to repeat itself.
Each party is judged by what it does. The Libertarian, Reform, and Green Parties have done nothing to deserve support. If you don't like the Democrats, propose a better alternative, not a worse one. This really isn't a good time for drama queen venting behavior.
ReplyDeleteDavid Byron, my point was that the other parties also have track records, and their track records are very bad. They have accomplished little or nothing, ever. The Democrats far outclass them.
ReplyDeleteLearn to read.
Your kind of meaningless sniping is a waste of time.
I don't agree that Ralph Nader's candidacy doomed Gore. Gore's candidacy (along with a compliant press corps) doomed Gore. He said himself that if he had it to run over again he'd be a different candidate. If Nader voters felt that Gore didn't offer them what they wanted, they only voted their consciences.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDavid, which is worse? Throwing up your hands, holding your nose and voting for the candidate that is least reprehensible, or throwing up your hands and voting for the guy who allows the MOST reprhensible candidate to win?
ReplyDeleteThere are two areas where the blogosphere is having the most effect. 1-In holding mainstream news outlets accountable for their misrepresentations. And 2-To target money and effort into primary races which raise the profile of the progressive wing within the Dems.
It's actually a tightrope walk because as we've seen, the ones who are most effective at raising grassroots funds are the ones most often caricatured and reviled by the hate-r-us crowd. "Google Move-on moonbat" if you don't beleive me!
well stated. third-party candidates are nice but reality is you need money in order to win elections. You may not need to raise as much money as the Republicans but you need a considerable amount of money. Third-party candidates are not good at raising a lot of money unless, they have name recognition.
ReplyDeleteMarkos is a good man and he is working hard. We should support him.
It is interesting to see how anyone who is out front immediately draws the ire of those of us who are behind him.
What we have here in The U.S. is a 2 party system. It wasn't written into the Constitution, but the way the Constitution was set up made it inevitable, I believe, that we would end up with a lasting 2 party system.
ReplyDeleteAll this talk about some 3rd party springing up and competing on an even footing with the Democrats and the Republicans is fun to talk about, but it won't happen, ever, unless one of the 2 parties we have no goes down to utter ruin.
The only 3rd party ever to amount to anything was the Republican party of the 1850's and early 1860's, and that only because the Whigs crumbled away to dust.
Now I don't mean to come across as rude, but anybody who seriously expects, or even hopes, that a 3rd party will compete over the long haul shows a profound misunderstanding of our system here. Let's look at the Populists of the late 1890's: they competed to some degree, and won some statewide offices around the country through the 1890's. They even ran fairly impressively for a 3rd party for the presidency. But before they could make any more lasting headway, the Democrats more or less took up their causes and absorbed the party into itself. W.J. Bryan, who ran for the presidency as a Democrat in 1896, 1900 and 1908, pretty much ran on the old Populist platform.
Then came the Progressives of the early 1900's. They, too ran fairly creditably in many statewide races for 10 years, leading up to the spectacular 1912 election, in which Progressive Theodore Roosevelt outpolled sitting Republican president William Howard Taft. But within 4 or 5 years, the whole party had been swallowed up by both the Democrats and Republicans. There wasn't even any Progressive presidential candidate in 1916.
A few governors and senators kept their Progressive label for a few years, but by 1920, all but 1 (so far as I can recall) had drifted back to one or the other of the major parties.
This will happen as often as any 3rd party makes any serious headway.
I myself am a Democrat, and am proud to be one. I plan to do whatever I can to help make the Democratic party as successful and liberal as I can. By working to build up a 3rd party, I would only be wasting my time and helping to keep the disastrous republicans in office.
I would also add that anybody who really wants to see 3rd parties pop up that actually work and compete successfully might as well start working to frame and ratify a new constitution that sets up a parlimentary system. Not that there would be much likelihood that that would work either.
ReplyDeleteThe real choice is for us to work within the president-congress system we have now.
It wouldn't take any changes to the Constitution to make third (or fourth, or fifth) parties viable. It's left up to the states to determine how they want to elect their members of congress and the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteIf we could get instant runoff voting going in one or more states, the domination of the two parties would start to erode pretty quickly.
HWSNBN is delusional:
ReplyDeleteWe conservatives simply do not vote for leftist Elephants. With only a few exceptions like the Lincoln Chafee, we ran the so called Rockefeller Republicans out of the party.
Ummm, we noticed.
The conservative agenda was never enacted until we did so.
Hasn't been enacted since either. What's been done is whoring to the corporations that own the Republican party, who are hardly "conservative". The "Contract With America" was a boon-doggle (remember "term limits"? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-heh...), and maybe it's time some conservatives figure out they've been taken for a ride and gotten raped and left bleeding in the gutter.
But the conservative wouldn't have gotten even the simulacrum of a "conservative" gummint if they hadn't played along as the willing stooges of the corporations and the wealthy. And the corporations may not have gotten what they wanted without hood-winking the conservatives into going along and helping their minions get in power. The Republican part cares only for power and money (and one begets the other and vice versa so that's all to the well for them). It's all "me, me, me!" And anyone else be damned.
Cheers,
buck b.:
ReplyDeleteI was squarely on the other side of this argument in 2000, and I voted for Nader. I wasn't necessarily a big supporter of the Green Party, but a viable third party, ANY third party, is something we've needed for a long time....
Wow. That really worked out well.
... If the Greens has reached the magic 5 percent mark, they would have gotten matching funds for the next election. That's an important first step.
Oh, BS. 5% and three bucks will get you a single latte.
Greens can compete locally, but not nationally. The federal elections, the reality of politics at the federal level, the manufacture of "safe seats", and the quirks of the electoral college system are all against them.
Unlike a parliamentary system, you must build your coalitions before the elections if you don't want to die the death of irrelevancy (or worse yet, a spoiler) in the American political system.
Cheers,
David, let me say it again.
ReplyDeleteThese. People. Are. Fascists.
I'm not talking about conservatives in general, or the Republican party. I'm talking about the relatively small cadre of people who control the executive branch right now.
This isn't fearmongering, this is fact. If you'd like to have a practical conversation about the viability of a third party three or four years from now, I'm game, just as I gladly had this conversation back in 2000. But saying the current situation is just business as usual simply doesn't hold in the face of the unprecedented usurpation of power by this administration.
David, it's true. Third parties don't work. The Greens haven't worked. The Libertarians haven't worked. These aren't hypothetical parties. They were real parties which gave it a shot several times and failed.
ReplyDeleteThe Reform party was a moderate success, in that it brought an issue to the fore (the deficit) but their main accomplishment was electing Clinton in 1992.
You always hear these same arguments because these arguments remain true.
Since you speak of the lack of honest arguments from your opponets, I think that I can venture to speak of the lack of intelligent arguments from you. You always just vent.
Eric, I was outside the box for about 30 years. I don't see that I accomplished anything that way.
ReplyDeleteIn arguments of this type it always strikes me that critics of the Democratic party don't feel required to put their proposed alternative up for criticism. That's why I call it sniping.
I'm not at all happy with the Democratic Party, but I play the hand I've been dealt. I'm well aware that most Americans don't agree with me about politics, and I haven't found a way to change that.
Eric, if we could change our electoral system, we could stop the Iraq War too.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to agree. Neither party wants to change the system, and the system probably won't change.
ReplyDeleteCanada is better about giving people someone they like to vote for, but the governments they end up with aren't a lot better than the American ones.
I have many, many thoughts on this subject. Lots of them are kinda scattershot, so my apologies in advance...
ReplyDelete"If the Democrats can win back a majority in the House this November — or, even better, the entire Congress — the Dems will have some power with which to fight the Right."
The argument that there's something uniquely important about this coming election that requires progressive voters to, just this once, cast their votes in opposition to their principles and beliefs is one that's peddled every single election. I mean it. Every single one. I promise you, there will never be an election where progressives are *not* told, "Just this once, you gotta cast a vote which belies all that you stand for. Next election'll be different, though."
"Before and after the midterms, netroots activists should push hard to increase our influence among the Dems."
After an election is the absolute *least* effective time to influence an elected official (of any party). He/she has just won! Why the hell would he/she need to accede to your demands?! Conversely, the best time to influence an elected official is just before an election. Sadly, though, this is precisely when progressives are usually told to pipe down, get in line, and swallow the candidate that the Democrats have given them.
It's really no wonder why Dems like DiFi feel emboldened enough to champion trash like the flag-burning amendment. Why shouldn't she? She knows we won't do anything about it. Heck, we could send DiFi ten billion letters urging her to reverse course, but unless and until she considers herself in electoral peril, she'll just toss 'em on the heap and continue to ignore us.
Assuring DiFi that she has our votes locked up this year, no matter what, is a lousy way to get her attention.
"There’s a lot more to be done to make America safe for progressivism again, such as reform media so that our messages reach the public without being twisted by the rightie noise machine. Election reform, real campaign reform — all vital goals, and none will be easy to achieve. But if the Dems don’t succeed in the 2006 midterms, prepare to kiss it all off."
If the Democratic Party were serious about electoral and campaign reform, they'd be enacting it already in states where they control the reins. Example: between 1998 and 2003 the Dems controlled the California Assembly, State Senate, and Governorship. At any time, the California Dems could've enacted such measures as Public Financing of Elections, mandatory airtime for candidates, proportional representation within the state, and Instant Runoff Voting for all statewide elections (including how they allocate their allotment of the electoral college votes). It would've taken one single act of simple legislation. No constitutional amendment necessary.
So what did the Dems do? Nothing. Where *have* any state Dems moved on IRV? Sadly, almost nowhere. In fact, since the Florida Fiasco in 2000, the Green Party has been *begging* the Dems in state after state to enact IRV, and bring a halt to the spoiler problem. And, largely, the Democratic Party responds to us with yawns and crickets.
So why in the world would it be different after *this* election?
I'm beginning to believe that the Greens are much more valuable to the Democratic Party as scapegoats and whipping boys than as any sort of coalition partner. Which is understandable, I guess. But the fact remains: until the Democratic Party establishment feels threatened in some way, it'll never support or enact real electoral reform. 'Cause monarchs don't like revolutions.
The Greens' job--perhaps their MAIN job--is to provide that threat, in hopes that the Dems enact real reform.
"The YearlyKos convention — which was fabulous, IMO, and if they have another one next year I’m already there — was a major step toward giving netroots progressivism real power in the flesh. I couldn’t have done it. I suspect most of us couldn’t have done it. But Kos did it, and he deserves the credit."
Okay, so is DKos a progressive site or not? Personal pet peeve, I guess, but I'm really annoyed that Kos gets it both ways. He receives lauds and accolades for his work in building a progressive netroots, but then when you go on his site and suggest that folks vote for, say, a progressive Green over a conservative Dem, you get hectored off. "This is not a progressive site," you are told, "This is a Democratic site. We only back Democrats here, even if they're conservative Dems. Take your progressivism elsewhere. So says Kos himself." If Kos's site is, by design and definition, nothing more than a hip young arm of the DNC, that's fine and good, but I wish that would be reflected in the clippings that continually give him credit for principles that he doesn't hold and values he doesn't espouse.
"So I say that if in-fighting over ideological purity is getting in the way of having the power to enact progressive policies, then the hell with ideological purity."
The "purity" argument is such a strawman, and it irks me the very most. A voter or activist who insists on ideological purity is someone who will not tolerate (in a candidate or party) even one single deviation from his/her own personal values. Well, I don't know *anyone* who meets that description. Hell, I don't know if there's ever BEEN a candidate in whom 100% of my own values are reflected. And yet, each time, I still find a way to vote... and vote for candidates of many different parties (including, yeah, the Democratic Party). But, please know (when you're arguing that "ideological purity" strawman) that the Democratic Party hasn't abandoned me on just one or two issues. Try 16 (at last count). 16 vital (to me) issues where the DNC platfom parts from my own principles, and where the GP happens to conform. Is *that* enough issues to free me from the accusation of being one who demands purity?
Finally, though I understand that davidbyron tends to grate on some here (I think Glenn called him a "bitch hole" just last week), I wanna emphasize something that he said:
"...you don't have to win with a third party to cause political changes... The reason third parties are rare in US politics is that whenever an opportunity for the arises the other two parties are forced to change as a result of the threat."
As a progressive citizen of this nation, I don't particularly thirst for victory. I thirst for change. And if, in fact, the Democratic Party comes to consider the GP a threat and changes its platform to absorb the Greens and eliminate that threat, that'd be more than enough for me to be satisfied. I just want the world to be better, and I don't care what party enacts that positive change, or what party gets the credit for it.
Please, Democratic Party, make the Green Party irrelevant! Democratic Party, I'm begging you: get so damned progressive that you put the Greens out of business!
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
The Greens are already irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteEric, your proposal seems a lot better to you than it does to me.
I started this thread with a mild grumble about the Democrats and hardly am uncritical about them. I have a lot of reasons. however, for accepting the basic premise of this thread, and most of these reasons have been laid out somewhere along the way. I am not happy that the choice I face is between centrist Democrats and near-fascist Republicans, but that's the actual choice I face. I'd love to have a third alternative, but I don't.
All proposals involve reaching and persuading many tens of millions of voters. None of the third parties has done that, or even tried to. They all have filled their respective niches and then stalled.
Eric --
ReplyDeleteThe type of people who acquire power in Washington care very little how undemocratic the system may be. This is a game that has been going on a long time now.
If someday you figure something out that most of us hadn't already realized many years ago, do speak up.
What makes you think a democratic majority in both houses will make a difference?
I explained that in the post, although perhaps you need to know more about how the u.s. congress works. If the Dems take back a house, they get to head the committees, set the agenda, aquire power to subpoena, and could stop being a rubber stamp for whatever the White House wants. As it is now they can't do anything but bitch.
Now, as I said, if they do get a majority in one of the houses, that doesn't mean they will use that majority power aggressively. We'll have to hold feet to fire. But at least holdnig a majority will make some things possible that aren't possible now. Primarily it would give us a means to reduce the autocratic powers assumed by the Bush White House.
In the end, in this two party dichotomy, it seems to me the special interests have the best winning record of anyone. Not the people.
The two-party system is not written into the constitution but is an unintended by-product of the way we hold elections, as well as of the electoral college system. For better or worse it has prevailed continuously for all but the first handful of years of our history.
Our current problems have several causes, but the biggest cause is that mass media campaigns are grotesquely expensive and require obscene amounts of money, meaning candidates have to prostitute themselves to special interests to raise enough money to win elections. This has been a particlar problem for the past 50 or so years. And having third or fourth or fifth parties wouldn't change that. New parties, even if they could become viable, quickly would become as corrupted as the old parties. As I keep saying, the system has become self-corrupting.
Periodicaly some token efforts are made to correct this, but of course the politicians in Washington are married to this system and don't want it corrected.
This two party system of yours is not very democratic. It polarizes. It's much more difficult to achieve the type of polarization observed in the United States political spectrum when there are more than two parties involved.
[sarcasm] Wow, I'm so happy you pointed that out to us. We never would have noticed otherwise. [/sarcasm]
Time to start thinking outside the box, folks. Time to start really thinking about change, not just buying into the same old game again.
Well, yes, that was pretty much what I was arguing in the post.
IMHO Barbara O'Brien hits the mark when she puts getting at least the House under a Democrat majority as a first priority. She is also spot on that many Democrats do not necessarily espouse liberal values. But it is the electorates' responsibility in ensuring their candidates remain loyal to the values of the voters who elect them. Such battles have to be fought in the primaries and whatever the party hierarchy says, incumbents are not ordained by god to do as they please but remain beholden to voters who need to be more proactive. Those who win the primaries deserve to get the support of Democrat voters - people who would prefer to see a responsible rather than a rubber stamp Congress.
ReplyDeleteHistorically third parties have not been a force in US politics. While this is a fact, it is also a self fulfilling prophecy in that it influences voter behaviour during elections. While Eric is right that in Canada there are more than two parties in the Federal Parliament, I must say that the NDP as the third most influential bloc is essentially keeping a very right wing minority government in power. This is totally different to what we see in Germany where the Greens as a third party manages to curb the zealotry of the right. In the UK the Social Democrats (SDP) are too libertarian to be trusted on any issue - that party was really founded by disaffected Labour politicians who took over what was left of the Liberals. To date the SDP has not had the numbers to keep the bastards honest. In Australia, the Greens and the Democrats were important players in the Senate until the most recent Federal elections - and the result was historic in that it is the first time since the 1970s that the Senate is dominated by the ruling Liberal-National coalition. Another big democracy that shows how third parties can play an influential role is India where the Left allies with the Congress Party to keep the rightwing BJP out of power at the Federal level.
Admittedly the US political culture seems fixed on bipolar party politics. That, however, may not be an immutable fact for eternity . If we have to work with the situation as is, returning at least a Democrat dominated House is what I would work for.
Having said that, I would also like to see proportional representation rather than a first past the post election system so we are not tyrannised by the majority. I would also prefer a saner approach to election campaign finance that cuts the umbilical cord of politics to corporatism. These are issues that can be campaigned for just as discimination on the bases of race, gender and sexuality were and continue to be.
All proposals involve reaching and persuading many tens of millions of voters. None of the third parties has done that, or even tried to. They all have filled their respective niches and then stalled.
ReplyDeleteNot true. A great many third parties have run truly national campaigns. They still don't succeed, but not for want of trying.
The single most successful third-party presidential campaign in our history was Teddy Roosevelt's run as a Progressive in 1912. TR was one of the most beloved people in the nation then, and he still couldn't win, although he beat the Republican candidate, Taft. The effect was that Woodrow Wilson became president.
Between 1864 and 1988, only six third-party presidential candidates won more than five percent of the popular vote. Of these, James Weaver (Populist) in 1892, Teddy R (Progressive) in 1912, Robert La Follette (Progressive) in 1924, and George Wallace (American Independent) in 1968 also picked up a few electoral votes. Eugene Debs (Socialist) in 1912 and John Anderson (Independent) in 1980 won at least five percent of the popular vote but failed to win any electoral votes.
I assure you that all of those gentlemen were known to voters nationwide. They were household names in their day.
However, I don't see why a parallel effort cannot be maintained that focuses on changing the system itself.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. That was the point of my post.
"The Greens are already irrelevant."
ReplyDeleteClearly they're not, or else why would the Dems be working so hard to keep their progressive block away from them?
If progressive third parties were truly irrelevant, Barbara O'Brien wouldn't have bothered to write this post in the first place. And you wouldn't have bothered to comment on it.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
We're STILL not really talking about changing the system. We're talking about being allowed to participate in it.
ReplyDeleteUm, you sort of have to participate in it to change it. The two things go together.
American liberals have been standing outside the gates of power for (as I said) at least 40 bleeping years, and we get nowhere. We have to take power to get power to change power.
That, to me, is counterproductive.
It's reality.
Patrick M., as Ross Perot used to say, it's just this simple. We have a chance in November to loosen the Bush Administration's grip on autocratic power. That chance is removing a Republican majority in one or both houses of Congress. A Dem majority is no guaranee of anything, but it's a chance. But if Republicans keep Congress, for certain we have to live with Bush being Lord High Dictator for two more years.
ReplyDeleteIf you read this site at all, you should have at least a clue as to the danger we face. But if you don't see the danger, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
Why do you suppose those efforts were not successful?
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of reasons, but IMO it's mostly because most states have a winner-take-all system of running elections. Here in the U.S. a party does not win power in proportion to the number of votes it receives. Parties only win power by winning a plurality of the votes cast in their district or state.
If A wins 34 percent of the votes, and B wins 33 percent of the votes, and C wins 32 percent of the votes, A wins the election and B and C go home empty-handed. The End.
In most places a party that wins 32 percent of the vote would win some seats in parliament, or something, and from there they can build a power base and coalitions with other parties and maybe do better next time. But here that just doesn't happen.
Both locally and nationally, often in a three-person race the two most popular candidates split the majority vote, and the third most popular guy wins the plurality and the election. I've seen this many times. Or, in a close election, a third party candidate can siphon just enough votes from one candidate to tilt the election to the other candidate.
Yeah it's bleeped, and people have been talking about changing it for, oh, nearly two centuries now. But the people who win elections don't want to change the system.
"I pointed out that voting third party -- or otherwise avoiding voting for Democrats in a noticeable way -- has an immidiate effect by pulling the Democrats (and ultimately the Republicans) to the left.
ReplyDeleteCan I get a response to this please?"
Sure you can, Byron. What you said is not true. It didn't happen. I did vote for Nader in 2000, and it didn't work. I voted mostly third party for 30 years before that, and nothing was accomplished.
The long term plan didn't work, and now we're dealing with a short term situation. If you can't figure that out -- well, who cares if you can't? You're all mouth and no brain, and famous for that.
There just aren't enough Americans who agree with me. that's the reality I'm dealing with.
"How do you expect to succeed if you do not try?"
Eric, WTF are you saying? You sound like an inspirational preacher. Your pet ideas have been around my whole adult life, and they haven't worked. I'm glad that they make you happy, but please don't think that you have anything to teach people.
Barbara, third parties succeed mostly by monkeywrenching major parties. Roosevelt shafted Taft, Perot shafted Bush, and Nader shafted Gore. They don't elect Presidents, and they seldom last three electoral cycles. When I said that they don't amount to anything, I mostly meant reacently. Nader's 2 1/2 % was effective sabotage, but it wasn't a step toward an national party.
Patrick, Democrats don't spend a lot of time working against Greens. I don't spend much time doing that either, but I'm willing to waste my time occasionally.
Barbara, third parties succeed mostly by monkeywrenching major parties. Roosevelt shafted Taft, Perot shafted Bush, and Nader shafted Gore. They don't elect Presidents, and they seldom last three electoral cycles. When I said that they don't amount to anything, I mostly meant reacently. Nader's 2 1/2 % was effective sabotage, but it wasn't a step toward an national party.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly so, but if look over the past 175 years or so, there have been a great many hard-fought efforts to create viable, national third parties. The only one that succeeded was the Republican party, and that was only because the Whigs broke up and vacated the number two spot.
See that's sort of why I think one or two of these issues should be made a core principle in an election.
ReplyDeleteSorry, which of what two issues?
My point (once again) is that we have to simultaneously break up some of the Republican power in Washington by helping Dems take back at least one house of Congress. But AT THE SAME TIME we have to reform the Dems -- which won't happen all at once -- and pull them back to the Left. And AT THE SAME TIME we have to change the political culture in America so that progressive ideas can be discussed in public. As it is now, most people never hear progressive ideas because the Right dominates media. And AT THE SAME TIME we have to reform media and change the way we hold elections. ANd this is going to take a few years, and it will be a lot of work, but Step One is taking at least part of Congress away from the Republicans in November.
Got that? That was all in the post.
People could really rally around something like that if it hints at REAL possibility of change occurring.
First we have to reform media in order to get a chance to EXPLAIN to Americans why our way of running elections and campaigns is bleeping us up. Right now we have very little voice, and the Republican Media Machine so dominates and saturates U.S. media that many Americans only hear their side of issues.
If progressive third parties were truly irrelevant, Barbara O'Brien wouldn't have bothered to write this post in the first place. And you wouldn't have bothered to comment on it.
ReplyDelete"Suicidal" is a better word than "irrelevant."
Look, I am too old and too jaded to believe that any party or candidate is going to be my or the nation's salvation. Parties are nothing but a means to aquire and direct political and governmental power. And party affiliation means nothing to me except that the realities of party politics must be dealt with if you want to turn ideals into real laws and policies. I'm neither for nor against Greens or Libertarians or Mugwumps or any other third party. I'm saying that if we AS PROGRESSIVES want to get serious and actually GET SOME POWER to ENACT PROGRESSIVE POLICIES, we don't have the luxury of supporting third parties.
I believe I have described a way in which progressives might, eventually, if we work really hard, get some actual power.
Or, you can continue to play with third parties, and forty years from now you will be exactly where you are now. Take your pick.
b o'b:"If you read this site at all, you should have at least a clue as to the danger we face. But if you don't see the danger, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you."
ReplyDeleteBarbara, I'm aware that this nation faces a great many dangers, most of them internal, and--like you--I want them solved. It's simply that you and I differ on strategy, on how the solutions can best be reached.
j.e.: "Patrick, Democrats don't spend a lot of time working against Greens. I don't spend much time doing that either, but I'm willing to waste my time occasionally."
Bollocks. Every time a Green candidate shows any electoral viability at any electoral level, the Democratic Party goes out of its way to assure his/her destruction. Yep, even when the Green's candidacy is no threat whatsoever to elect a Republican.
Exhibit A: the San Francisco Mayoral Runoff in 2003. Democrat vs. Green. No Republican in sight. And yet, to defeat the Green, the Democratic Party spent a total of ~$8M (estimated between $38.90 - $42.70 per vote... the largest per capita expenditure of any mayoral candidate in American history).
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi all campaigned for the Democrat. Again, not to prevent "spoilage" that would benefit a Republican. No, they flew out to San Francisco for the sole purpose of ensuring a victory against a Green.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
My point being, there doesn't seem to be any unified effort to make those things priorities.
ReplyDeleteThere is, but it's all coming from the liberal blogs. Creating a unified effort to make those things priorities were topics A, B, and C at the YearlyKos convention.
Eric, I keep explaining to you what I wrote in my post. I say we need to do A, B, and C, and you comment, why aren't you doing A, B, and C? I'm getting a bit frustrated. Maybe you need to read the post two or three more times; it would save us both some time.
Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps this time around is really going to be different? I haven't been following the primaries that closely..
It can be different if we work to make it different. As I have said several dozen times already, just electing Democrats is not enough. We have to also work to reform the Democrats and enact several other reforms to fix the political culture.
Wouldn't it be more fair to call it the corporate media? Who happens, as far as I can see, to favour whoever happens to be in power.
No. Big chunks of U.S. media have been taken over by the Right and their news agendas are driven by right-wing politics. Big chunks of U.S. media are little more than propaganda outlets for the extreme Right.
Back in the 90's we were hearing all about the Liberal media. Perhaps I'm again missing something.
Yes, you did. All that talk about the "liberal media" was propaganda coming from the Right. Read Eric Alterman sometime. One might have argued that U.S. news media was sympathetic to liberalism in the 1960s, but not since.
And yet, to defeat the Green, the Democratic Party spent a total of ~$8M (estimated between $38.90 - $42.70 per vote... the largest per capita expenditure of any mayoral candidate in American history).
ReplyDeleteOoo, candidates actually spend money to defeat opponents and win elections! How unfair!
Or, do you think that because your party is so holy and righteous the big guys will just lie down and let your party siphon votes away? And what planet are you from?
To win elections you have to, um, win elections. In our current system you need warehouses of money and lots of powerful backers to do that. And you're going to have to win elections to have the power to do that.
"to have the power to change that," I meant.
ReplyDeleteYeah, there's a vast right wing conspiracy out to get you Barbara.
ReplyDeleteYou should fight it by casting your lot with stock manipulators from the Raging Bull.
They'll get along very nicely with the corrupt corporatists, so peace and harmony will descend upon the land.
You can pick up pointers on how to proceed by renting the movie Boiler Room.
Great plan. You have really hit the nail on the head about what's wrong with this country. Good luck.
"No need to get so offensive, by the way. I'm trying to be constructive here."
ReplyDeleteIf you say so.
Barbara, I'm quitting. Let's let these guys talk to each other. Byron in particular is saying the same thing he always says.
My concern is that this isn't in the voter's face enough to actually make a difference.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's our concer, too, and it's going to take a lot of work to change that. We're trying as hard as we can, but our political culture is so corrupt that reforming it is like sweeping all the sand off Miami Beach. But either we keep trying or let the fascists take over. I don't see any alternative.
ewo -- thanks for stopping by. Do make sense next time, OK? Thanks much.
ReplyDelete"Ooo, candidates actually spend money to defeat opponents and win elections! How unfair! Or, do you think that because your party is so holy and righteous the big guys will just lie down and let your party siphon votes away? And what planet are you from? "
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the Democrats refuse to ever ever ever, under any circumstances, lie down for a Green. That'd be fine if the Democrats didn't then, under each and every circumstance, request (no, DEMAND) that the Greens lie down for them.
Barbara, we Greens, six years later, are still expected to bow and scrape and apologize for running Nader in 2000. What would you do if, instead of reaching out and making nice, tried to defend Nader's candidacy with your very own words ("Oooo, candidates actually spend money to defeat opponents and win elections! How unfair!") I think you'd be a mighty angry lady.
And, p.s., no one here has called themselves or their party "holy and righteous". Where did that come from?
Sure, Greens think they're right and the other guys are wrong. But guess what? You think that you're right and I'm wrong. Republicans think that they are right and we're wrong. None of the above makes any of us self-righteous. It just means that we have differing opinions, and firmly believe very different things.
The house is on fire, in other words. Some of us think our first priority is to put the fire out any way we can. We can argue about what wallpaper pattern would look best in the master bedroom some other time.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Kos would agree with that analogy. I'd suggest a different one: Some insist that only clean water should be used to fight the fire, even though none is at hand and the house may burn down before any can be brought in. Others are for going ahead and pumping on the septic tank because its all that's available. Neither is really an attractive option.
A lot of commenters keep missing the essence of any strategy - first, get on the board so one is in a position to push a barrel load of progressive ideas and that means ending Republican dominance in the House and preferably in the Senate too. There isn't time to reform the election system by November. So for progressives who would prefer a Congress that exerts a legislative check on untramelled executive power, it means actively campaigning and voting for Democrats in November.
ReplyDeleteYes, direct elections rather than electoral college votes would be more preferable, as would be proportional representation and
banning any judicial intervention in the election process but those are longer term issues that would require a lot of convincing. These need not be politically partisan issues and are not in many other western democracies. A more transparent election process is something many have already engaged in with RFK Jnr exploring legal recourse in relation to 2004 Ohio results. The point about the netroots blogosphere is that they offer a medium to air ideas which will not be thought of in the MSM.
Democracy, however, does not start and end with casting a vote. It is an ongoing struggle and this is what most people do not appreciate. If they did, we would not have Liebermans and DiFis. How many times have you heard people make that profoundly political statement: 'I'm not really interested in politics'? Nor would we have all that animosity towards Nader if the Democrats back in 2000 acknowledged that he was articulating ideas that appealed to otherwise Democrat voters. Strategically the Democatic party missed the plot by not accepting the validity of some his ideas and making them their own to undercut Nader. I don't blame Nader for exercising his legitimate democratic right under the Constitution but I do blame the judiciary and the officials responsible for all those absurdities of pregnant chads and butterfly ballots and the judiciary for making a decision to stop the count that I do not believe served the spirit of the legislative underpinning of US jurisprudence. I also blame Gore for conceding defeat and bowing to the judicial decision. Excuses like national unity never did wash and were no credit to US reputation. Overseas, people were laughing their heads off - they thought it was Monty Python in real life.
Another thing, if people don't like DailyKos, they are not compelled to visit the site - they do have a choice. Why aren't these people making a fuss about Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etc?
"Another thing, if people don't like DailyKos, they are not compelled to visit the site - they do have a choice. Why aren't these people making a fuss about Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etc?"
ReplyDeleteBecause those latter folks are not held up as luminaries of the progressive netroots, while simultaneously banning and exiling progressives who refuse to pledge loyalty to a single, specific, not-that-progressive political party.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Al Franken's War
ReplyDeleteTears of a Clown
By JOHN WALSH
Last Friday, June 17, was not a good day for the Al Franken radio show. Al was “down,” sounding like he was on the verge of tears, not such a good disposition for a comic. It seems his listeners had let loose on him when he proclaimed that he “agreed with Bush” on the question of withdrawal from Iraq. That is, Franken does not support the Murtha proposal to depart posthaste and call it “redeployment”; in fact Franken does not support any timetable for withdrawal at all. The emails and phone calls apparently poured in after this most explicit declaration yet of his long-held position. Here is the email I sent after hearing him say, in the course of declaring himself a disciple of Bush, that his radio program was the site of genuine “debate” about what to do in Iraq:
Dear Al,
Today you did not tell the truth about the War on Iraq. You have never had a real debate on your program about immediate withdrawal, which is the position of over 70% of the Dem Party - although not that of the moneyed Dem Establishment (e.g., Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid) to which you seem to be very much in thrall. (By the way, this shows that the Democratic Party is not democratic (small “d”).)
You were pro-war before the war and now you remain pro-war. Do you know how that strikes the ear when you talk about your children who, like the Bush kids, do not go to fight whereas other less privileged kids, one of them the daughter of friends of mine, do?
Why you take this manifestly absurd position is unclear. You are a smart guy, even though you went to Harvard (joke). So what is up? Is it ambition for public office that leads you to take the Establishment position? Or is it loyalty to Israel? I do not know your position on Israel; but you have never, to my knowledge, discussed the oppression and plight of the Palestinians.
Along those lines you have never had a discussion of the Mearscheimer and Walt paper, and you must be familiar with it.
So by omission you lie. And hence I have to stick with my piece in CounterPunch.com, from about a year back, “Al Franken is a Big Fat Phony.”
Perhaps some day you will catch up to Randi Rhodes who, after years of hanging up on callers who advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq, has finally come around. And she is finally talking about Third Parties without the pressure of which the Dems will never change.
jw
p.s. Why not have on Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com or Kevin Zeese or Ralph Nader to discuss the anti war position? Or have two of them. You and Richard Perle or your frequent guest, Norm Ornstein, or some other reactionary from AEI could take the other side.
In fact there was apparently such a furor from many others that Franken opened up the phones, something he rarely does now, and he took all of three (3!) calls. The final one came from a retired military guy in Minnesota who made it clear he was for getting out of Iraq pronto and told Franken that he was disappointed in him. The caller also noted that he had two friends, both conservatives, a retired policeman and a firefighter, who did not vote in the last election but would have voted for Kerry had he been against the war. That was the final call. Franken went back to his guest list of minor celebrities and Democratic Party hacks.
Why was Franken shaken by all this? Does he see a threat to his run for Senate in Minnesota? Does he perhaps have some twinge of guilt over the hundreds of thousands killed or maimed in Iraq while he calls for fighting on, with his own kids, who are of military age, nice and safe? Maybe his hypocrisy was too much for him to bear for a few minutes with the barrage coming at him. But he was soon back on track – like Luisa in the Fantastiks.
Franken reaches a lot of people and so he has a lot of responsibility. He must be counted as one voice shoring up support for the war especially among Democrats. It is time for antiwar groups in Minnesota to look for a candidate to run against Franken for Senate in 2008. It would be pathetic to reward his complicity in the war effort with a seat in the U.S. Senate.
If you read this site at all, you should have at least a clue as to the danger we face. But if you don't see the danger, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you read this site at all, you should have at least a clue as to why the dangers we face will not be solved by switching labels.
But if you don't see the danger, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
ewo -- thanks for stopping by. Do make sense next time, OK? Thanks much.
ReplyDeleteTry this for sense, babs. Unless someone here knows otherwise and offers the proof, it appears to be a fact that Jerome Armstrong signed a consent decree with the SEC because he had been a big time stock pumper and manipulator on Raging Bull during the bubble. Translation: he was paid to steal from others.
Try this on for sense, babs: The people who pumped Enron and others stocks on Raging Bull and sites like that are CROOKS, get it?
They made their money by lying and pumping stocks they knew were worthless to cause others less knowledgeable and not privy to "inside info" to LOSE MONEY.
Get it?
Now you make some sense telling us why you think that a two bit crook is a person to fawn over as you do him?
OK?
Then make some sense by calling him up and telling him to return the money he stole to the people he stole it from.
OK?
Making sense to you?
Or is that not sophomoric enough for you? Apparently it has to be sophomoric for you to find sense in it.
.....two......three.......
The extra beats are to give time to the Rand hating "anon" to get here and tell us that Ayn Rand would have approved of a crook like Armstrong because she believed in unbridled laissez-faire capitalism.
Then you can talk amongst yourselves....
Monday, June 19th, 2006
More On The Jerome Armstrong Stock-Shilling Bombshell
Mickey Kaus notes that Chris Suellentrop, who blogs at the NY Times, broke the story before the NY Post:
Armstrong and Moulitsas…worked as consultants to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign, and Dean’s former head of Internet outreach, Zephyr Teachout, sparked a blog tizzy last year when she wrote on her (now defunct) personal blog that the Dean campaign paid the two men in an effort “to buy their airtime.” Teachout wrote:
“On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients. … While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment — but it was very clearly, internally, our goal.”
Moulitsas dismissed Teachout’s posting as a “non-story,” and he noted that he posted a disclaimer on Daily Kos stating that he worked for Dean for the duration of the contract. Armstrong, for that matter, quit blogging while he worked for Dean. But their disclosures were somewhat haphazard — posted on separate pages like this one — and after the campaign ended, they didn’t always disclose their past financial relationship with Dean, leading some people to compare the blog boomlet they helped create for Dean to the work of online bulletin-board posters who touted dodgy Internet stocks during the boom market without disclosing that they were being paid for their words.
Which, interestingly, is precisely what the Securities and Exchange Commission, in court documents filed last August, alleges that Jerome Armstrong did in 2000. (The original S.E.C. complaint is here.) In a subsequent filing, the S.E.C. alleges that “there is sufficient evidence to infer that the defendants secretly agreed to pay Armstrong for his touting efforts” on the financial Web site Raging Bull.
Without admitting or denying anything, Armstrong has agreed to a permanent injunction that forbids him from touting stocks in the future. The S.E.C. remains in litigation with him over the subject of potential monetary penalties.
(hat tip to Ryan Sager at the RCP Blog)…
UPDATE 10:31 a.m.: More from the always-interesting MinuteMan, who graciously links to yours truly and expounds a bit on the consent decree. Just for the record, the ‘neither admitting or denying guilt’ is standard boilerplate for SEC consent decrees - it certainly doesn’t imply innocence and, in fact, brings a fairly heavy, though not absolute, assumption of guilt (otherwise, why settle? Oh, to avoid litigation costs, I suppose - but let’s face it - 90% of people who enter into these agreements (and I’m being charitable) in fact did engage in the wrongdoing alleged)…
He is indeed being charitable. Try 99%.
One Response to “More On The Jerome Armstrong Stock-Shilling Bombshell”
1 PoliticalCritic Says:
June 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
You can’t trust anyone these days, eh? Even some bloggers are slick criminals too. It looks like Armstrong is just another used car salesman looking to make a fast buck.
Uh huh. And the reports by the attendees at the Yearly Kos conference gushing about Warner's and others' soirees were enough to make one want to puke.
Seems our little gang of "progressive" netroots hypocrites didn't really object to the cocktail weenie circuit----what they objected to was they weren't on it yet.
And while we're at it, progressives, about Gore:
Lieberman. Explain that away. Or try....
There are, logically, only two possible explanations and neither is very appetizing.
The Right's claim to be in the majority is not delusional, at least not at the level of elected officials and their advisers. They go to great lengths to cover up the nature of their programs and their actions--giving bills names that are opposite to their effects, working behind the scenes to expressly not enforce regulations and laws. They suppress the vote, both legally, through negative ad campaigns and on or over the bounds of legality, as in OH, FL and NH.
ReplyDeleteThey know that in an honest vote on the issues, they'd lose. That's why their campaigns are about character, not policy. That's why they savage opponents with caricature and lies. They know they have to distract voters from their policy positions.
If anyone has any suggestions for how to make the actual author more prominent, I'm all ears.
ReplyDeleteChange the url to one that doesn't include your name.
UnclaimedTerritory.us is available.
Three comments:
ReplyDelete1) Have the greens not noticed that the religious right has been very effective in promoting its agenda by supporting the Republican party instead of emphasizing its differences?
2) The greens don't have any candidates. Having to turn to Nader, who is no green, was one sign. The VP candidate, Winona LaDuke, was another--an indication of your bench strength and political realism. In retrospect, it was even worse than in might have been, because Nader was a terrible candidate. Instead of working to build the party, he worked to promote Ralph.
3) By splintering off the green vote, even the paltry couple of points it represented, you managed to defeat the greenest Presidential candidate we've ever had, and elect the brownest Presidential candidate we've ever had.
You have to learn to pick your spots if you actually want to advance your agenda.
Just as the religious right is better off with Bush than with Gore or Kerry, even though their agenda is frequently passed over, you'll be better off with Warner than you will with Allen.
EWO! I've found it! The next step in your ascension to Randian/Objectivist Samadhi! Even Blair and clinton have yet to reach this pinnacle of moral/political techno-philosophy!
ReplyDeleteGet in on the ground floor! This is a real money maker!
EWO... Try this on for sense, babs: The people who pumped Enron and others stocks on Raging Bull and sites like that are CROOKS, get it?
Why aren't they in jail, or at least on trial?
Armagednoutahere said...
ReplyDeleteI know you're a moral absolutist, and as difficult and impractical as that can be, I respect you for it.
He's not a moral absolutist. There are no absolutes in a closed system. There isn't even an absolute vacuum in outer space. I know of no actual moral absolutiists. I know of many simple-minded scolds and dolts who are incapable of complex, multi-dimensional thought in multiple frames of reference. The higher the IQ the less of an absolutist you are likely to be. Even Gandhi is a debatable case. I wonder if you knew he slept naked with young girls to test his state of Brahmacharya.
If you actually do find a true moral absolutist, like the Jains, it's a rare thing. As Joseph Campbell used to point out, the fact that they would not even eat a piece of fruit unless it had fallen to the ground of it's own will, means that there are damn few of them around. They all starved to death.
One more thing, it's "reap what you sow".
Sewing is done with a needle and thread.
I agree with Barbara and I'd go even further:
ReplyDeleteWinning at least one house in Congress is worth whatever it takes.
Whether it's cheating, lying, dirty tricks, anything that gets a 51-percent majority or better is justified. This is pretty politics anymore. We're beyond symbolic gestures, standing on principle or falling on our swords.
No litmus tests - even if it means DiFi gets another ride. Lieberman has a (D) after his name, and my choice in the ballot booth is between an (R) and a (D), I'm not going to pay much attention to the name in front of the (D) - that's the one I'm voting for. Period.
Barbara is totally spot-on, here. The house is burning down, so putting out the fire is the priority. After that, we can talk like adults but until then, absolutely anything that extinguishes the fire is worth doing.
David Byron's argument is that when he rejects and ignores the main anti-third party argument, he proves that there is no anti-third-party argument. He's been saying this kind of thing for years, and he's not going to change.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, Eric seems like a nice person, but I found it annoying when he came in with an idea which has been around for decades, pretending that it was a bold new idea and demanding that we pay attention to him. And when we refused, he started questioning our character -- we aren't bold thinkers like Eric.
These proposals have histories and track records, and a lot of people have decided against them. Changing the electoral system would be nice, though not as nice as Eric thinks, but the same problems that make everything else difficult make changing the electoral system difficult, and more so.
We're at a sort of endgame with American democracy, and having those guys breeze in and try to reopen old questions is highly annoying. There's something going on right now, and if they don't want to be part of it, they should butt out.
It's like some guy comes into the operating room with talk about wheatgrass therapy and preventive medicine. Just not the right time for that, guys.
Sure, Greens think they're right and the other guys are wrong. But guess what? You think that you're right and I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteNot really. I think the Dems are wrong a lot. I agree with the Greens fairly often. But the Greens don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning seats in the U.S. Congress or the White House, so it hardly matters whether I agree with them or not. The Greens are not a viable means to channel political power and get anything done. My proposal is to work to reform the Dems and make them a more reliable tool for enacting liberal/progressive policies. This is not going to be easy, but it's possible. Electing Greens except on a local level is not possible.
sona, john emerson, Phd9, dan, the raven, at least one incarnation of anonymous (who gets around :-)), Armagednoutahere, jay ackroyd, dread scott, and even eric -- thanks; interesting discussion.
ReplyDelete"My proposal is to work to reform the Dems and make them a more reliable tool for enacting liberal/progressive policies. This is not going to be easy, but it's possible."
ReplyDeleteI understand that. And I agree with that proposal. I just believe that the Dems will never become a more reliable tool for enacting liberal/progressive policies unless the party feels genuinely threatened, electorally, from the left. As such, building that electoral threat (whether it's the form of the Green Party or some other party) is, in my opinion, a sine qua non of progressive change. In fact, as you've noted above, the construction of similar electoral threats were precursors to most every instance of progressive change in our nation's history thusfar. Now is no different than then.
Toward that end, Barbara, I believe that it's gonna take good, well-meaning progressives (like you, Barbara) pushing from inside the Democratic Party and good, well-meaning progressives (ahem, cough cough, ahem) pulling from outside the Democratic Party to make that change happen. Lose either part of the above equation and the DNC hierarchy will simply ignore progressives. As you noted Ross Perot saying: "It's just that simple."
"Electing Greens except on a local level is not possible"
Well, there we disagree. I think it's very very very very very hard, but I think it's possible. Similarly, I think that trying to unroot the Democratic Party from its corporate paymasters will be very very very very very hard. Some would even say, "not possible." And yet we'll try, 'cause you and I are liberals, goddamn us.
Barbara, you and I agree, wholeheartedly, on what we'd like to see happen in this country. We just disagree, fervently, on the most effective path to get there. It doesn't make either of us bad, or stupid, or evil, or corrupt. It just means we disagree. Fervently.
I'd like to say thanks and "interesting discussion" to everyone, not just those who happen to agree with me.
ReplyDeletePatrick Meighan
Venice, CA
"My proposal is to work to reform the Dems and make them a more reliable tool for enacting liberal/progressive policies. This is not going to be easy, but it's possible. Electing Greens except on a local level is not possible."
ReplyDeleteOkay, and one other thing: it *is* possible to attempt to do *both*. For example, though I'm (clearly) a devoted Green, I worked my ass off to try and get Marcy Winograd (a Dem) elected to congress here in Venice, in the place of the excreble Jane Harman. I mean, I spent dozens and dozens of hours. Probably knocked on about a thousand doors for her. On election day, I precinct captained four different precincts, all for Marcy Winograd. A Democrat.
Though Jane won, she changed many of her most regressive policy stances... not out of kindness, or because her staffers were persuasive or something. Jane changed because she felt electorally challenged from the left.
This is a microcosm for what the Green Party is trying to do to the Democratic Party, and what third parties throughout our nation's history have done to the two main parties: force them to change in response to an electoral threat.
Anyway, point being, it's possible to do both.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Third-party people always assume that there's a big pool of sympathizers out there who would flock to our banner if we only put the word out, but that isn't true. I've spent 30 years learning that most people are more conservative than me.
ReplyDeleteYou really have to persuade twenty million noters if you want to have a significant impact, even as a wrecker. All post WWII third parties except Perot's have been stuck in tiny geographical and cultural niches that they couldn't expand out of. Perot's advantage is that he was a genuinely dissident centrist and a billionaire, but by now centrists have no choice but to be Democrats. A centrist party would offer nothing to Greens and Libertarians.
"Third-party people always assume that there's a big pool of sympathizers out there who would flock to our banner if we only put the word out, but that isn't true... You really have to persuade twenty million noters if you want to have a significant impact, even as a wrecker."
ReplyDeletea) You only have to persuade a hundred thousand voters to get someone in Congress. You mean to tell me that "third-party people" like Bernie Sanders haven't made an impact?
b) Even when "third-party people" don't win, they shift the center of the debate over to the ideological direction from which they're running... forcing acknowledgement of issues that'd otherwise be unmentioned or ignored. For example, in the 1920s, "third-party people" like Eugene Debs shifted the frame of the national debate to include public works programs and social security structures to protect our nation's most vulnerable. Though they didn't win many elections, those "third-party people" triggered significant social change that lasts to this day, and never would've occurred if those "third-party people" had listened to folks like yourself.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
David, we've all heard your point of view. I heard it 30 years ago or more, and I argued it myself for at least ten years. Whether or not it was ever true, I don't believe that now is the time for that kind of voting.
ReplyDeleteSo why are you so angry? What do you have to be angry about? You made your pitch, and no one bought it. You've been making it in an increasingly insulting way, and you've refused to listen to us, and yet you're the angry one.
Individually or as a group, the Democrats are nowhere near as bad as you assume that they are. And to a considerable degree, they're bad because the voters want them to be bad. You seemingly believe that the voters agree with you, but they don't.
We need to persuade something like 60 million people if we want to win, and you can't persuade anyone whatsover about anything whatsoever, even here, because you're a yammering horse's ass, and yet you think that we should all pay attention to your opinions about what we should be doing.
Third parties have a track record, and it isn't an encouraging one.
David, you and the others have made your arguments. We heard them and don't buy them. There's no particular response to be made to what you have said, except to say, as I have several times, that we're dealing with the situation we face as we think best. If you don't think that the present threat demands an immediate, short-term response, fine. We'll go your way, we'll go ours.
ReplyDeleteIf you think that a third-party strategy will be effective in the long run, fine. We don't. Go your way.
We can't prove we're right, and you can't prove we're wrong. You claim that the burden of proof is on us, and we claim it's on you. That's a standoff.
Even in 2001 I still agreed with you, but already before 9/11 I changed my mind. I thought over all the kinds of things you've been saying and decided they was wrong. And I'd just like to repeat: the 2000 Green vote did NOT move anyone to the left. I thought it might, but it didn't. My mistake.
In particular, I'm now convinced that we can't take a long-term strategy. And yes, that's a bad situation to be in, but I can't change the reality.
You can go around till hell freezes over demanding answers and being huffy, but you're being the dick. We can't prove that our strategy is the better, but neither can you. The most annoying thing about you is that you keep asking us to prove that we're right, while apparently believing that your strategy - which does have a long track record and which HAS been tried -- does not need justification.
"I voted mostly third party for 30 years before that, and nothing was accomplished."
ReplyDeleteHave there seriously been organized progressive third-party presidential challenges every time for the last 30 years? Really?! Who was the progressive third-party challenger in '92? In '88?
I'm not being snarky. I'd really like to know.
I, myself, have not been involved for third-party politics for 30 years. Just 6. And in those 6 years, I'd say the national debate HAS changed, greatly.
"And I'd just like to repeat: the 2000 Green vote did NOT move anyone to the left. I thought it might, but it didn't. My mistake."
Though I can't prove it, I firmly believe that Nader's '00 candidacy set the stage for Howard Dean's renegade '04 presidential bid, the subsequent DFAs that have sprung up nationwide, and Dean's ascendancy within the DNC.
Though I can't prove it, I firmly believe that Nader's '00 candidacy, and the multilocal Green organizing that it inspired and that followed, have helped put single-payer health care and full public financing of elections into the field of mainstream issues for discussion... issues that had previously been so far to the left as to be undiscussable.
Though I can't prove it, I firmly believe that Matt Gonzales's '03 Green bid for Mayor of San Francisco, and his very narrow loss, inspired the Democratic victor (Gavin Newsom, a centrist Democrat, to that point) to immediately take the bold, courageous, and completely uncharacteristic (for him) move of legalizing gay marriage within the city and county of SF... an act that singlehandedly changed the compexion and tenor of the issue nationwide in a way that will never ever be undone.
Again, and against all odds and counter to all manner of obstacles, the left-side of the debate frame has moved leftward since the Greens have entered the picture (itself a very recent development). That is an accomplishment, John.
"We can't prove we're right, and you can't prove we're wrong. You claim that the burden of proof is on us, and we claim it's on you. That's a standoff."
In the end, this is probably the truest thing written on this entire thread.
"If you think that a third-party strategy will be effective in the long run, fine. We don't. Go your way."
In the end, this is probably the best advice written on this entire thread.
Thanks to all for a very heated and stimulating discussion.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
PR Person: Los Angeles Greens
Though I can't prove it, I firmly believe that Nader's '00 candidacy, and the multilocal Green organizing that it inspired and that followed, have helped put single-payer health care and full public financing of elections into the field of mainstream issues for discussion... issues that had previously been so far to the left as to be undiscussable.
ReplyDeleteI think this is pure fantasy. It's questionable whether serious discussion of either issue has entered the "mainstream," except when Russ Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly make fun of them. We haven't yet reached the point at which we can have honest and factual debate instead of propaganda.
That said, I think that over the past dozen or so years Americans have slowly been reaching a point at which they might consider single payer health care instead of dismissing it outright as "socialized medicne." Meaning, if we could have a national discussion on health care without rightie demagoguery drowning it out, I think it's possible we could persuade a majority of Americans to support some kind of univeral health care program.
But this shift is a result of peoples' personal adventures in the health care system, IMO, not from anything Ralph Nader said about it. I assure you that outside of Green circles few Americans have a clue what Ralph Nader might have said about health care. But growing numbers of Americans are realizing that they could lose their own access to health care, if they haven't already. People are very, very worried. But most people aren't yet hearing single payer proposals outside of rightie talking points about how bad it is in Canada.
BTW, you may not remember that Michael Dukakis made universal health care a centerpiece of his 1988 presidential bid, although he stopped short of calling for single payer. At the time, few people were concerned enough about health care to listen. And Harry Truman proposed a national health care system 50 years ago. This has been a Democratic issue for a long time.
As far as public financing of elections is concerned, I doubt most Americans have heard much about this proposal at all, never mind understand why it might be a good idea.
david byron, the pompous ass, whimpers:
ReplyDeleteNeither have the Democrats. Logically if I were to accept your argument I'd have to become a Republican because only they have the power to stop Bush right now. Naturally we see this (and hence your argument) is absurd. We look forward to a time when supporting non-Republicans will have an impact even though it won't be immidiate. We take a longer term view. Why can't you take a longer term view than November 2006?
You seem determined to make yourself irrelevant. Your "logic" is just another expression of your angry and frustrated personality. You have no ability to engage anybody productively, and since I assume you're smart enough to recognize this, I have to assume you don't care to.
So you're just here to let us all know who you are. We see you david. No need to jump up and down to get attention. Your pomposity comes through loudly and clearly.
You're a frustrated and angry guy, and the difference between your actual intelligence and your own assessment of your intelligence makes you fatuous. You think your logic is sound but it's not. Time and again you say whatever you need to in order to disagree with whomever you decide pisses you off on any given day, resulting in contradictions and pretzel logic, even hypocrisy at times.
You keep honking at all the traffic going the wrong way on the freeway, never stopping to wonder why they're all so confused and only you are going the right way. It's a lonely road to be so smart when all the rest of the world is so stupid.
Anon:
No wonder my garden won't grow all these years. I've sewn my seeds and waited, all for naught. I contemplated sowing, but I worried that turning a female pig loose in the garden would damage the crops.
I feel so foolish.
Thanks for the tip.
Barbara
ReplyDeleteYou say: "As far as public financing of elections is concerned, I doubt most Americans have heard much about this proposal at all, never mind understand why it might be a good idea."
Not quite. David Sirota in a piece in the HuffingtonPost reports a poll conducted by Public Campaign Action Fund (PCAF) that finds 75% Americans supporting public finance of election campaigns, including 80% Democrats, 78% Independents and 65% Republicans. The link to this article is below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/new-poll-big-majority-su_b_23472.html
I commented in an earlier post that many welcome reforms to the election system and its processes need not be partisan issues. The PCAF poll confirms this.
I do not suggest that these reforms can be achieved in a short time or that returning at least a Democrat controlled House is not the first and more urgent priority. The issues nevertheless do need public debate and that is occurring. This is an opportune time to start talking about this particular issue - capped public financing of election campaigns - as the corruption scandals keep unrolling and parties and pols are busy with fund raising. This issue also raises another, that of proportional representation because that lies at the heart of allocation of public funds among candidates. Politicians will not want to talk of this. But many worthwhile campaigns have not been instigated by politicians - they usually follow the tide if the debate can get off into top gear.
Sorry
ReplyDeleteI needed to split up the URL to the David Sirota article in the HuffingtonPost. Here it is again:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-
sirota/new-poll-big-majority-
su_b_23472.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOooops, try this:
ReplyDeletesona:
Don't worry about the fat that the right side of your clickie isn't seen; it's there, and anyone who double-clicks will "select" (and can then copy and paste) the entire link. If you put in a line break to make the full thing show in the page display, you put in a *carriage-return* which means that people have to copy and then paste together two different lines to get the full URL. Better to make a "blue clicky" with a short name (and the full URL). This is done by adding '<a href="*URL*">*clicky name*</a>' tags around it. If you want someone to do this for you, and to be able to post the fulll line, go here, and copy the full otuput line, and paste it into your post.
HTH.
Cheers,
arne langsetmo
ReplyDeleteThank you for that link to the link maker - greatly appreciated.
It frustrate me personally to encounter Green parties' animosity towards Democratic control of the House at least. Do they really believe that the GOP have any interest in ecologically sustainable policies? The selective singlemindedness of their argument ignores that Gore was a Democrat candidate and his commitment to environmental issues was well known worldwide, yes even in Australia back in 1994, long before 'The Inconvenient Truth' burst on the scene.