Michael Wolraich's picture

    Liberals Don't Persuade

    I've spent a lot of time studying the tactics of the right wing. While I've expended a great deal of energy disparaging them, I have also developed a certain respect for the right's ability to recruit millions of Americans to its side. In a few decades, the conservative movement has transformed itself from a faction within the once vastly outnumbered Republican Party to the most powerful voting block in the nation.

    Right-wing politicians, talk radio hosts, and the good folks at Fox News do a great deal of attacking, but it serves a very clear rhetorical purpose. They are trying to persuade vast swaths of America that liberals our out to get them. And it's extremely effective.

    Meanwhile, the great American left gets smaller every year. I haven't spent nearly as much time examining the tactics of the left, but I ingest a daily dose of liberal rhetoric here at dagblog, which offers a microcosm of the wider internal Democratic disputes.

    The liberals here also do a great deal of attacking, but the sense of purpose is sorely lacking. Unlike the right wing, they do not seem to interested in expanding their audience. Not only do many people here ignore the larger world that simply does not buy into many liberal ideas, they don't even attempt to persuade one another, preferring to insult the very people that they need to on their side.

    I am not advocating a cheerful round of Kumbaya by the campfire. Nor am I convinced that the road to rebuilding a liberal majority requires people to compromise their principles. Rather, it requires people to persuade others that their principles are worth fighting for.

    Let's suppose that you want your fellow liberals to follow the post-partisan lead of President Obama. You will never accomplish that by calling the dissenters traitors and fools. Your only chance is to convince them of the strategic importance of Obama's strategy.

    Or let's suppose you believe that Obama's compromises are critically undermining core liberal principles. You will never build support for those principles by calling the compromisers idiots or "Republicans." Your only chance is to convince them that the principles are the key to rebuilding a liberal majority.

    And more important than persuading one another, if you truly want a majority of voters to join you in your struggle, you need to persuade other people who may not even consider themselves liberals or Democrats that your vision is the right one.

    Roughly 75 percent of the people who visit dagblog each day are not regulars. If all they see are a bunch of bickering liberals, you can be sure that they'll surf on without even considering what you have to say. If your purpose in blogging is to promote your ideas and ideals, you must reach them.

    On the other hand, if your purpose is simply to vent your fury at the few who bother to pay attention to your rants, then carry right on what you're doing. Just don't pretend that you're doing it for any higher cause.



    The right has an easy message.

    The left wants to tax you. .....Everyone hates the tax collector.

    As long as there have been taxes, people hated the tax collector. Nonetheless, the tax collecting left dominated American politics for 60 years.

    The conservative movement has succeeded by persuading so many Americans that the government is squandering their taxes. And the left has failed to convince them otherwise.

    Not addressing your whole post here ... this speaks right to the part that interests me - convincing America of X Thing  (the fact that there are clearly two very distinct agendas in conflict within the Democratic party is a different issue - it seems whichever side prevails this question is germane).

    Let's agree you've arbitrarily defined X Thing as "Government does not squander their taxes." (it does BTW - that's likely why this one is such a difficult nut to crack).

    Given: conservative movement speaks in a language that cuts through the clutter and makes people pay attention - shouting. You addressed that, and attribute success to cohesion and focus.

    Obama, the Democratic front guy with all the TV cameras pointed at him, has not been shouting - nor has any other Democratic leader to any significant extent. Actually, the faction having a finger pointed at it here is disgruntled specifically because Obama won't shout and aggressively pursue things that are important to them. The only way what you are saying seems to work is if we're defining Obama and the Democratic leaders who specifically have not been yelling as the "left". In which case, yeah, I guess the "left" has failed to convince Americans of Fact X in the face of the conservative tactics . But parsing it like that DOES get linguistically awkward.

    This kind of comes off like trying to dump responsibility for the outcome of people doing exactly what you advocate on members of the "shouting left" ... and then saying "the left's" failure proves we should continue to do what has thus far been a huge bucket of fail. Isn't expecting the "shouters" to have carried the day putting an awful lot of responsibility on a rag-tag bunch of shouty folks when there is this nice big shiny political party that usually serves the purpose of advancing the message of the people who voted for it's candidates?

    Not saying you are absolutely proved wrong (although, I tend to disagree). Just saying you make a crappy case. Whatever the message ends up being, observation suggests a more successful approach would be to get just as angry as the people are - as I am - and tell them just who to yell at and why. Loudly. And then lead them in the shouting ...

    The republicans only care about their big corporate donors.

    They want you to think the biggest worry we have is the deficit.

    Then why does




    Say the biggest worry we have is 


    Without Jobs the deficit


    And the Republicans refuse to invest in jobs

    Their corporate donors want to send those jobs


    So they don't have to pay


    The Republicans refuse to invest in jobs.

    Their bailed-out banker donors have too much money.

    And don't want to.

    Pay. Their. Taxes.

    They want you to pay them instead.

    After your taxes bailed out their banks and delivered


    When was the last time YOU made enough money.

    To stop owing taxes?

    Are we going to let the tax-dodging republicans send even


    jobs overseas?

    HELL NO!

    We demand the republicans invest in good paying jobs at home and quit fiddling with the deficit while Rome burns. America has carried their billionaire bankers on our shoulders for long enough - it is time for those reaping the benefits of the taxpayer bailouts to to carry their share of the load. And if they refuse. We are going to make them wish they hadn't.

    Mix your metaphors with reckless abandon - hold some damn rallies, you know, with the party resources, and shout it at the top of your lungs. That's how the people who are kicking your ass would do it.

    You don't think something like that - polished up a bit - might not get more adherents than a careful analysis explaining the balanced competing interests at the table and the nuance of political expectations when one really understands what it takes to accomplish things in Washington and the unreasonable nature of expecting something all at once so we must temper expectations/demands as not to drive any of the stakeholders into a more intractable position and accommodate all interests with a balanced approach recognizing the opposition has identified a deficit concern which should be taken very seriously making fiscal restraint a priority at the top of the agenda expressly set to accomplish this important goal of the opposition through offsetting corporate tax breaks with only a 32% increase in contributions by the existing workforce to increase efficiency for the job-creators and in turn begin to positively impact the employment metrics on a mid-range horizon?

    Just something to consider.

    That was really good kgb999

    Huey P Long on the difference between Democrats and Republicans......Huey Long on the $700 Billion Wall Street Bailout




    Ok, that's it. I took "shout" out of the title. I should have done it right away when EmmaZahn challenged it. It muddled the message.

    Shouting is not antithetical to persuasion. The right wing shouts like crazy, much more than the left. Shouting only interferes with persuasion when you're shouting at the people that you're trying to persuade.

    Thus, raising hell at rallies and shouting at Republicans does not hurt the left. But when the left wing shouts at the moderates or vice-versa, that's counterproductive. Is that any clearer?

    Cut it, resistance. You're irritating me.

    Actually, that was clear from the get-go ... mostly. That's why I said I wasn't speaking to the whole post (maybe *I* should have been clearer :). I can't take anymore of this meta-here's-the-way-to-convince-your-neighbor stuff. I don't disagree really - I'm just sick of it. So I tried to pretend it wasn't there.

    I was only referring to the last bit where it really seemed like you were saying quiet persuasion was the best best way to win over middling voters (I'd quote it, but then I'd have to click back). I think the shoutier the better for that purpose - especially when you KNOW everyone's pissed and wants something non-idiotic to yell about. But that gets into the genuine conflict within the Democratic party. There are two strong competing interests where one has to lose (or risk quite a bit) for the other to win (or meet a minimal set of goals) and there isn't any apparent magic spot that meets both sets of desires/needs. I'm pretty sure one set of interests would NEVER allow something like I what I offered appear as an official-type opinion held by supported politicians with names and stuff. Wouldn't be prudent (to say the least).

    Shoutier can definitely work when done right. That's what the right wing did.

    The rise of the right wing can also offer a lesson for the left wing in how to regain influence within the Democratic Party. In the 70s, Republican moderates resisted the right in the same way that Democratic moderates now resist the left and for the same reasons--concern over uncivility, extremism, alienating voters, etc. But the right eventually cowed the moderates into submission in two ways. 1) They defeated liberal Republicans in the congressional primaries, depriving moderates of the balancing opposition force. 2) They defeated Democrats, expanding their constituency and proving their electability. (They also got Reagan in, but that's a more complicated story.)

    To accomplish either 1) or 2), you simply need numbers. The right wing mobilized a large number to vote for their candidates. The left wing has not been able to do that--so far.

    Wouldn't accomplishing this require people to ignore the advice you offer as central premise to your post? The Republican right achieving control of the GOP sure didn't happen through their mastering the art of gentile persuasion. It seems moderates are mostly OK with the idea of primary elections - so long as it's a non-election year or it is a liberal being primaried (under the full weight of national party resources - including the POTUS putting his finger on the scales) for daring to draw a line in the sand opposing the "moderate" agenda.

    I disagree a successful political action needs only numbers. Or more to the point, numbers are the result of a successful political action - they are a trailing indicator. To attract the numbers needed for success requires leadership, MONEY, and legitimate (neutral/positive) access to the media. Control of these resources allows the moderates to enforce their will on a much larger majority within the party.

    And let's get real here, "moderate" at this stage is just a euphemism for wealthy Democrat to whom many essential republican philosophies provide no small benefit. The rich (and yes, 100K+ is rich) are wielding outsize influence over the the party using the same tools wealthy Americans are using to give themselves outsize influence over the nation. And the non-elite of the Democratic party are at the EXACT same disadvantage internally as they are nationally .... with the added bonus that the moderates are using the liberal's own donations to act directly against their interests (and then calling them all sorts of names when they suggest amongst themselves not donating to the party anymore).

    It's pretty much gotten past the point where liberals need to persuade the moderates IMO. The moderates really seem know what they are doing - and are winning like crazy. I'm quite certain moderates know exactly what liberals want. Folks are mostly just talking at each other by this point; regardless what tone is employed.  Liberals need to defeat them. And the dominance of the moderates relies in no small part on keeping liberals from realizing it - or at least from acting on it.


    It's a little more nuanced than that. The right wing insurgents didn't start with the moderates; they started with the Rockefeller Republicans, the equivalent of Blue Dog Democrats. And they also pulled off some impressive victories in Democratic districts. With growing power, they marginalized liberal leaders like Rockefeller and helped persuade the majority to support Reagan.

    There were periods of direct conflict, particularly in Kansas, and much later purges of moderates, but mostly, the right succeeded in co-opting the moderates through its message and its electoral strength.

    Btw, when they started, the right had very little money and zero access to the media. The rich business guys thought that the right wing was crazy. The movement began, as Tmac noted below, at the grassroots level.

    Finally, I encourage you to rethink your black-and-white map of the left. Your description of rich dogmatic Democrats does not represent the moderate Dems I know. I, for one, consider myself a moderate Democrat, and I don't earn 100K+. Nor am I beyond persuasion. I would also like to see a stronger left wing, even though I'm skeptical of parts of the agenda.

    And awwww .... why'd you take shout out of the title? Totally got a theme going ... sort of thought it worked. :-(  .... don't put it back though, that would be schizo :-).

    Let's suppose that you want your fellow liberals to follow the post-partisan lead of President Obama. You will never accomplish that by calling the dissenters traitors and fools. Your only chance is to convince them of the strategic importance of Obama's strategy.

    Or let's suppose you believe that Obama's compromises are critically undermining core liberal principles. You will never build support for those principles by calling the compromisers idiots or "Republicans." Your only chance is to convince them that the principles are the key to rebuilding a liberal majority.

    Excellent, G.

    Much of what you say may be true, Genghis.  Just wish you hadn't used the blanket term "liberals".  I don't think it applies to everyone, either here at dagblog or outside these walls.

    My favorite liberal is Rachel Maddow.  She does her homework, picks her topics wisely, leaves no stone unturned, and knows how to give great interview,  And she never shouts.

    Bill Moyers doesn't shout.  Robert Reich doesn't shout.  In the peanut gallery, I try not to shout.

    (Anthony Weiner does shout, but I cut him some slack because he does it so well.)

    I never shout, but I used to twist.

    Hi Ramona, I confess to overgeneralization. It's not everyone of course, and I was particularly reacting to recent debates at dagblog, which of course does not include everyone here.

    The title is also something of a misnomer. It's not the shouting that's the issue--conservatives love to shout too--but rather the lack of outreach that I'm focusing on. Have Moyers, Maddow, and Reich converted many "non-believers" to liberal ideas? I have no data, but I'm skeptical of that.

    I think they probably have - especially Reich.   But if not, what would you have them do?  Certainly Reich's demeanor is great: passionate but funny and respectful, and willing to jump into the fray on conservative venues.   What else can he do?

    I would argue that we need (at least) two types of motivators: those who reach out to independents, and those who shore up the base. In either case, however, you need to motivate and not just insult (just to be clear, that's not a dig at you).

    OK, here's one small suggestion. Reich often addresses the difficulties of average Americans--which is good--but he rarely speaks to them. He speaks about them. He writes as if he's calling out to the policymakers to help the struggling workers.

    There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a direct appeal to the average voter. I'm willing to bet that Reich's audience is highly educated and white-collar.

    By contrast, if you listen to Fox or Limbaugh or read the right-wing blogs, they always refer to "you" or "us." For example, here's a typical Limbaugh spiel: "This health care plan is being revived to ram it down your throat and my throat and everybody's throats."

    I'm not saying that Reich has to do what Limbaugh does. That's not his shtick. But I don't think that there are many on the left who make these kinds of direct appeals these days.

    Doesn't Reich appear on Bill O'Reilly's show fairly often?

    Reich is a regular guest on Larry Kudlow, and Kudlow is more right wing on economics than O'Reilly.  And, heck, when I was at Forbes I would email Reich all the time for comments on stuff and he always answered, without much regard to what he thought my agenda was.  He's fearless and always willing to speak to the other side.

    Genghis, it's only natural that right wing radio listeners would think an overweight self-admitted drug addict who skirted service when his nation was at war, and who makes hundreds of millions was 'one of us' because he exploits, reinforces and plays to their prejudices, stereotypes, and their ignorance. Neither you nor anyone else is going to 'reach' those people, only their own life experiences may do that, if they ever they change at all.

    As to the liberal sniping, I believe in a forgiving God, and if conservatives can let Newt Gingrich get by with having "been married three times and admitted to having an affair with your current wife while you were still married to your second" those on the right should be able to listen to and forgive liberals who disagree, that is if they are not hypocrites who live in the make believe world as defined by the self-serving big money and big lies media machines of Limbaugh and Murdoch.

    I've never seen any evidence of any conversion of "non-believers", no matter who's doing the pursuading.  It's not what any individual says, it's who's putting up the money to spread the message.  Our message may be sincere and the rock-bottom truth, but without the machine to drive it home, we might as well be howling at the moon.

    My feeling after long observation is that liberal ideas don't appeal to the rich and powerful. (Surprised, are you?)  In fact, our notions are anathema to them.  They'll bury us if they can because we carry a message that goes against their own self-interests, and as long as they have the power, they'll be having none of that.

    So now that they have us buried up to our necks, we have to figure out a way to burrow out of our hole.  To shout or not to shout.  That is the question.

    (But I sense that's not the question you're asking.)

    No offense, Ramona, but I think that blaming the Koch brothers for Democratic losses is too facile an excuse. Nobody pays for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to broadcast; they're profit machines. Sarah Palin's book was number 1 on Amazon. The three of them easily drowned out Obama, despite the natural bully pulpit of the presidency, without having to take a cent from the Koch's.

    I'm not talking about Democratic losses, I'm talking about ways to get our message across---which, I thought, was what you were talking about.  I watch in absolute frustration the likes of Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Howard Dean and Richard Trumka and a whole host of others, each in their own way describing so well where we've been, what we're up against, and what steps we need to take to get out of this mess.  For a day or two, an hour or two, I'm energized, but in the end--despite their passion, despite facts on the ground and words that soar--nothing has changed.

    It's been going on like that for decades now, and, while I'm energized again by the events in Wisconsin, I don't have a clue about how to go about convincing anybody that the people I admire are worth listening to.  It would be great if Robert Reich could look into the camera and address the people he's trying to reach, but Bernie Sanders does it all the time, bringing me to tears by how near he comes to getting down on his knees and begging--and so far he hasn't built a following that would make a bit of difference anywhere outside of our own enclave--the bunch that welcomes Sanders and what he has to say.  In other words, the choir. 


    Sorry for misinterpreting, but I think my point still holds. The right-wing messages aren't echoing across the land because rich Republicans have bankrolled them. People have flocked to hear them.  Whatever Murdoch's political motivations, he makes good money on his messengers.

    Liberal attempts to emulate the right just haven't worked to the same degree. I'm not sure if it's the message or the messengers, but they're simply not connecting as well.

    I believe that the right has tapped in to more basic fears than the left, and it is odd because a lot of what they are taught to fear from big government is also true of big business and big religion.

    Fear and (ahem) persecution politics.  It's hard to combat either one of them with simple common sense.  Horror films are more popular than English countryside films because scary is, let's face it, more entertaining.

    Well yeah, I guess it goes without saying that I believe the right wing found an extremely potent message.

    But it doesn't fully explain liberals' weak messaging, which was once very effective. Part of it may be that the message is simply old. Been there, done that. We're stuck clawing to hang onto the status quo rather presenting a fresh vision.

    Not so much it being the same ole same ole message.  The message is fine.  The delivery system sucks.

    A blogger can pique interest in a message; an adman can punch up the message; but it takes an orator to deliver the message.  Liberals have no worthy orators at this time.  There are a few speechifiers around who know and feel the message but unfortunately have all the vocal fortitude of Mickey Mouse.    I do believe our next crop of great orators will likely grow out of the blogosphere, though.  Here's hoping one of 'em sounds like Winston Churchill.

    You wrote:

    I've never seen any evidence of any conversion of "non-believers", no matter who's doing the pursuading.  It's not what any individual says, it's who's putting up the money to spread the message.  Our message may be sincere and the rock-bottom truth, but without the machine to drive it home, we might as well be howling at the moon.

    This is not true. Over the years in Washington State, where we are particularly active we have changed the nature of the state to one that is a deeper blue every single election cycle. We work hard, at the grass roots level, we've been able to move county and city councils that have majority Democrats represented, which have helped pass policies, that have widened our margins. We continually expand our base by talking to people about voting and why they should vote.  Some of the counties we have done these things used to be a majority of red or conservative counties. They were once red. Don't wait for the organization, we are already here and waiting for people to show up and help us out, or at least quit denigrating our efforts.  We are the machine you want in place, why aren't you noticing us.   The machine is here, you watched Nancy Pelosi wield our power, and she wielded it well, and swiftly and pushed through policies we've been working on for more than 60 years in the case of Health Reform. She didn't do all that in a vacuum, she did it with our help.  We really are here, we work whether people see us or just refuse to see us.

    T, the grass-roots, on the ground movement can work wonders. I've seen it in action, too, and it can be amazing.  I was talking more about the media, including the internet.  We talk past each other or preach to the choir and none of it is especially effective.

    The fact is, in order for the grass-roots to be heard and acknowledged, there needs to be a public forum.  Community efforts do the job quickly and effectively, but the mood of the country has to shift in order to make real, lasting change. 

    We in the blogosphere could do more toward looking to the communities large and small and reporting their progress.  That might be the way to go, in fact.  Look what focusing on real events did for both Egypt and Wisconsin.  Thanks for your thoughts on this, Teresa.  They're really worth considering.

    Well I think this is how Republicans accomplished this, they have also been working since before Nixon to change the way the public thinks about government and how it works for them or by telling them how is does not work for them.

    They phenomena of talk radio and the rest was borne out of those efforts and came much later. We don't need them so much as we need real participation on more consistently from those who want  change.

    Tmac is right. The grassroots work began in earnest in 1970s. It was spearheaded by Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie. The catalyst, interestingly, was Gerald Ford's selection of the liberal Nelson Rockefeller for VP, which spurred disaffection on the right against the GOP.

    That said, it wasn't only grassroots work. Weyrich also founded the Heritage Foundation, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and the Committe for the Survival of a Free Congress--a political fundraising organization much like today's Club for Growth and the Koch's Americans for Prosperitty Foundation.

    It's also interesting that to build a conservative political infrastructure, Weyrich deliberately emulated the liberal political infrastructure of the time.

    Liberals shout?   When?  Where?  

    Whinge?  Yes.  

    Snark?  Sure.  

    Heap scorn and ridicule on easy targets?  Definitely.

    But I noticed that when comfy narratives and preconceptions were challenged by contrary facts or shouting broke out,  too many big-L Liberals picked up their marbles and left the playing field to their opponents.  A recent example was when Whoopi and that other woman walked off their own show because of something their guest, Bill O'Reilly said.  WT?.

    Fair enough. Maybe I should change the title. It's getting me into trouble. It's so pithy though.

    YES ! And maybe some of those well healed intelligentsia on the left should stop lecturing Mr. Joe Blow-about-to-loose-his-home-because-he-has-been-out-of-work-for-over-a-year on how he should vote and who he should support - like a Seventh Day Adventist lecturing an alcoholic.  Because it comes off as arrogant and self righteous snobbery.  And maybe they wouldn't loose so many elections.

    That was a joke, Emma.  Whoopie and Joy planned it before Bill even got there, and they're the first to admit it bombed.  They're both comedians but apparently don't write their own jokes.  It didn't faze O'Reilly in the least but made the women look like silly liberals.   They know that now.

    I don't know about that. Sounds like spinning to make it sound better.  In the clip I saw Barbara Walters was angry about them walking off and then lit into Bill O'Reilly herself.  

    I'm sure you're on top of the metrics.  Do you have any evidence to suggest that that 75% block, "if all they see are a bunch of bickering liberals,  ... will surf on without even considering what (we) have to say?"  Or is that just your suspicion reflecting your personal point of view on the subject of shouting v persuading?  

    None at all. I'm sure that most of the 75 percent will surf on no matter what, though I do believe that incestuous infighting is not especially alluring. I mainly wanted to point out that there is an audience out there other than the regular commenters, and if contributors want to build support for a cause, they should think about them.

    I agree that the audience out there counts for something.  I don't think the tone and temper of the discussion means as much as some around here imagine.  I'd love for someone to try and quantify it and I'd be just as happy to be wrong as right.  Personally speaking, I passed by and stuck around, not in spite of the "bickering," but often because of it.  And not because I like a food fight.  I find some of the most informed and persuasive blog posts and comments come out of the most heated and "nasty" threads. I've been sold on many ideas here regardless of the salesmanship.  And I doubt I'm unique in the least.

     (But I also like a good food fight)   

    Ha, thanks for the personal testimony. I'm glad that you stuck around.

    I'm sure that my personal distaste for the bickering has colored my perception of its effect, so I take your dissent seriously. To be clear, I'm all for passionate debate, but I think there's a clear difference between when two people are trying to persuade one another and then they're trying to dismiss and disparage one another.

    I think it's rare that two or three people going back and forth on these threads are really looking to persuade each other.  Sure, it happens, but mostly the sparring is intended for the wider, mysterious audience passing through.  In that context, any manner of styles can be persuasive.  IMO "polite/civil/tempered" -- whatever your pleasure, doesn't always cut it.  I like a sharp jab and a subtle ribbing.  In the end, I think the good, well communicated ideas win out regardless of style.  

    And yet here we are civilly trying to persuade one another over a difference of opinion, and I, for one, am seeing your side.

    But it's not style and civility that I'm trying to stress here. The question is, what are you trying to accomplish? If your hope is to rebuild American liberalism or defeat Republicans, as many here at dagblog say that they want, telling possible allies that they're idiots is not the way to go about it.

    Hey, three cheers for civility.

    I think I understand what you're saying about ultimate goals and such.  Like DC says -- keep your eyes on the prize.  I just think style is really what this boils down to.  And I don't think any particular style has an advantage over another in persuading folks.  I think better ideas and smart messaging is what does it.  And being the diverse group we are, we should probably encourage as many styles as possible to reach maximum support. 

    Yves Smith has a take on it, runs counter to Genghis;s assertion:


    Oh c'mon, stardust. I didn't advocate civility towards the right wing, and as I clarified to kyle, this post isn't about civility in any case. It's not about shouting per se, it's about shouting at each other rather than trying to persuade one another, as well as to persuade average voters. I have some disagreements with Smith's piece, but they have nothing to do the subject of this blog post.

    I think it's possible you have an aversion to conflict per se.  A-man penned a similar diary, and I thought two commenters weighed in and neutralized his theory.  I don't read here a whole lot, but when I do, I don't see any shouting.  You may hear it as such, but it may be that some folks are more passionate about their positions than others. 

    I also think that the anger that fuels the passion is often responsible for the best activism, and the best writing.  Those who seem to have felt for some time that the Dems and Obama are beoming increasingly irrelevant to what people need, and will begin to mobilize for, or create for themselves are often frustrated by those who are more conservative in their acceptance of Liberal politics.


    I have an aversion to certain forms that anger takes, which I've made no secret of, but that's not what this post is about. In fact, I agree that anger can be very politically effective. That's why I started by citing the success of the right wing, which is all about anger (and fear).

    But as I wrote in the post, the right wing has used anger in order to connect with voters and thereby recruit followers. The left wing has not been doing so. Anger against Republicans or business interests can be effective. Anger against anyone who doesn't identify with left wing politics cannot be--for the simple reason that the left needs people who don't currently identify with the left to start doing so.

    I've gotta tell you, Genghis, I've been keeping a pretty low profile lately because I'm sick of the bickering and meanness. I know politics ain't beanbag, but a person can only take so much of watching people who basically want the same things unable to agree on the color of the sky. I was a disillusioned repub turned passionate dem, and now I'm a disillusioned dem. I'm hoping to get my passion back, but I'm VERY frustrated by the left's inability to show at least a semi-united front. Even when we agree on a particular subject (like the crap going on in WI) we bicker. It really has dashed my hopes for our country. The repubs are turning this country into a banana republic, and all we can do is sit back and nit pick each other to pieces while they do it.

    I know what you mean, Stilli.  I think that's what Genghis is feeling, too, though I don't want to put words in his mouth.  I've given up on the idea that the liberal/progressive blogosphere will ever be united.  I don't know if it's just the nature of the beast, but, while we might agree on the basics, there are vast differences in what we need to do and how we need to do it.

    I like dagblog because anger isn't the emotion of the day..  There are a whole lot of "progressive/agressive" websites that I stay away from because they end up sickening me almost as much as the Right Wing sites that continually spew their particular brand of hatred.

    We do need to work together, and the events in Wisconsin show that we can.  So just as I'll try and work from the inside to bring Obama and the Dems around to what's right, I'll stick with dagblog and keep trying to get that same message out.  At least here I don't have to shout to be heard.  Again, just what Genghis is getting at.

    Stilli, I hear your frustration. I'd like to think that dagblog is a place where you can get both--where the left can engage with the moderates. But that inevitably invites bickering, and my post was an attempt to address that.

    Nonetheless, I think that there's great value in a plurality of views. Otherwise, we'd be nothing but another liberal echo chamber.

    I'm VERY frustrated by the left's inability to show at least a semi-united front

    Lenin called this the "infantalism of the left" and as you can see by the age of that quote, it is a chronic condition.

    Shorter Genghis:

    "Keep your eyes on the prize."

    Always good to be reminded.

    15 April 1904, New York Sun, pg. 6, col. 5:
    Their Points of View.
    'Twixt optimist and pessimist
    The difference is droll;
    The optimist the doughnut sees -
    The pessimist the hole.

    At first I thought that was from the most recent incarnation of The New York Sun and I was like "no wonder they went out of business with all that oldy tyme writing."

    Perfect.  And easy to remember.

    I'd like to see Michael Orion Powell (ya still out there, MOP?) weigh in on this.  Because from what I recall from my own participation in various conservative forums (as a conservative in my teenage years as an invited antagonist when I grew up) is that they all, from the social/religious conservatives to the neocons to the libertarians love debating.

    Reason is a good magazine and Web site.  The content is well thought out, it's sometimes compelling and it's sometimes difficult, challenging and fun to argue against.  I know that's easy for me to say as a liberal with some libertarian leanings.  But even The National Review has intellectual heft to it at times and rereding The Closing Of The American Mind, especially in light of all that's happened since, might be fun and useful.

    I think it's certainly worth wondering if we can make some of our occasional visitors, even from the opposition, at least as curious about us.  I guess the first thing is that we have to realize that the right baits us a lot.  They do it on purpose.  Many times it seems as if they're taking positions that aren't really even conservative by any rational stretch and are only designed to tick off liberals.  Like Rick Scott turning down Federal transportation money that was going to be used to pay private companies to build a train.  When I was a kid, Republicans liked privatization!

    What happened to Oleeb's comment?  It was awsome.  Sorta aggressive and kinda punchy, but quite persuasive.  It was perfect for this blog post.  I hope others get a chance to read it.  Oleeb? 



    I decided to repost it. After all, you don't get more pithy than that.

    No.  It was a long, thoughtful comment.  I saw the leftover period, which makes me think Oleeb went back and scratched it.

    Yeah, it was kind of long but I thought better of it primarily because it's like talking to a rock.  These folks who like to bash the left for not "persuading" to their over intellectualized, freshly scrubbed middle class liking typically have little or no experience in politics or government or public policy and so discount much of what the left has to say because of tone and style issues.  I'll not repeat all I had to say but I will say this: sometimes you need to shout and the left has little to apologize about on that score.  I don't see a whole lot of persuading going on in Wisconsin.  Should they stop shouting?  Hell no!  They're in a fight not a French salon discussion or a wine and cheese party!  I don't believe in shouting all the time but when your nation is in the middle of a depression and in danger of sinking quickly into an authoritarian police state I'd say it's appropriate to shout.

    The best response I've seen, perhaps ever, to this (what I consider naive) kind of mindset that seems always willing to behave itself and settle for less is a post Miguelitoh brought to my attention yesterday.  Many thanks to Miguelitoh for doing so!  I recommend it to one and all.  It's called "What if the Egyptian Protesters Were Democrats?".  Here's the link:



    Sorry I missed it.  That's the problem with the heavy moderation here:  you gotta be quick if you're gonna know what those who are not in the in-crowd are saying.  

    Now I really want to know what became of that comment.  It's possible Oleeb scratched it for some reason.  I guess management could have, too.  ??

    For the record, management did not scratch the comment. The great mystery rages on...

    I'd have bet piles of money that management didn't touch it.

    Genghis, I'm but a foot soldier. I listen and learn and pass on tidbits to others. But I've noticed there's not much of a message for one to grasp from the liberal sphere lately. As you stated, liberals idea of persuasion is to shout. Unfortunately, noise isn't a message easily understood by those looking for something more solid to bank on. There are lots of people here and on other blogs that have good messages that need to see the light of day beyond the one-zee-oohs of the digital divide. But the message is muddled. For some reason it never gets the air-time for it to go viral. Remember a few months back, AmericanDad on TPM and his tirade that went viral and made the news...I think Oberman on MSNBC as well as some major newspapers. We need more of that. Otherwise, we're nothing more than the mouse that roared and no one took seriously.

    If you would really like to know how everything that FDR stood for has been systematically rolled back, take the trouble to view this documentary from the BBC. It is all here.

    Thanks for the link Dave.

    I am personally very frustrated and depressed about the whole scenario as it has developed, when you're out there working hard, to continue to fight for change, the same things you've been working for for almost 30 years, to come to each and every blog that disparages our hard work. Name calling is the order of the day and where concerted efforts are made to silence our voices. We've been working our asses off turning counties blue, and we get called Republicans daily by people who are kind of on our side. We are now forced to wear the label DINO, Republican lite and most insulting of all, "one who serves her corporate masters".

    Hell, I attend the meetings, we get out there to register people, to try to get the real message out there, and as used to taking hits from Republicans as we are, taking hits from the left is really demoralizing. We've seriously been working hard, years of meetings, years of getting out the vote, and I have to tell you at times I get depressed when I come to blogs and read the stuff that gets thrown around about the work I do. I get depressed, I get resentful, I get pissed, I feel insulted.

    We took time from our lives to work our asses off to make change from the ground up, and we get shit on all over, ganged up on, effectively driving many people away. I get extremely frustrated when people disparage my work, while they do nothing but yell. This fight has been around for a long time, but the Republicans have 40 plus years since Nixon to infiltrate and spread their ideas, and getting attacked from the left hurts. It hurts because we have worked hard. It is shocking that while we work for real people, those who could be helping us, have resorted to using the same tactics wingers have been using against us since Richard M. Nixon.

    As you can see, I am still taking it personally. I am just recovering from jet lag, I'll have to catch up on Dag later, but this one is nice.

    I hear you. Let me give you my perception.

    For all your hard work over the years the fruition of your labors seem more bitter than sweet. It's not that you haven't fought the hard fight nor refused to go elbow-to-elbow to win the day...you have. But the reason for the sour harvest of your efforts lies with the people put forth to carry out the agenda your grassroots efforts have worked so hard over the years to form, shape and sell to the public. I'm talking about our Congress-critters.

    For instance, when HCR was taken up by the Senate Democrats, it was obvious to the most casual observer what the public thought HCR should be wasn't what Senator Max Baucus intended. The same with finance reform and so forth.

    From my point of view the public is frustrated and they take out that frustration at the nearest person whom they believe represent the establishment. Unfortunately, it's those who pound the pavement, knock on doors, answer phone lines to explain issues and so forth. Volunteers at the grassroots level trying to energize the public on the issues are in the cross-hair of public frustration if the public's expectations are not realized because they are the one's closest to the community...Congress-critters are too far away to vent at.

    So it's not the message you've worked so hard over the years to perfect, it's those at the top who we elected to carry out those ambitions that have dropped the ball and let it fall back into your court. You, and other volunteers like you, are being made the scape-goats for the failings of the Congress-critters who are working hard to establish themselves in Congress rather than working hard towards an agenda the public desires. And it pee's me off when I hear one of them response they're working for the constituents of their state rather than the common cause of the constituents of the Party as a whole. That's the breakdown in the message being discussed at the grassroot level...the people at the bottom are being energized by you and others while the people at the top aren't listening. And the public's frustration trickles down.

    “We are now forced to wear the label DINO, Republican lite and most insulting of all, "one who serves her corporate masters". 

    If the shoe fits wear it, If you don’t want fleas, don’t lie down with dogs   

    "We took time from our lives to work our asses off to make change from the ground up, and we get shit on all over, ganged up on" 

    Poor baby  

    Yes we did fight, our forefathers had they're heads bashed in trying to fight for our rights

    You want to talk about the DINO label, how about this simple label on your shirts

    “UNION MADE” or how about this simple label “MADE IN AMERICA  

    Take a trip to the parking lot where the Wisconsin protestors are crying about collective bargaining.

    Are they driving imports? Look at their clothes, does it say Union made? 

    Puhleeze…… give me a break,  

    Our strength in Unions is gone, because American workers cut our throats, and the moment it appears some Faux Union cries foul

    "WOW the Government is coming after OUR right to collective bargaining"  all hell breaks lose. 

    Those Union folks are too late  

    The protestors crying for help now “ WOW, I am now affected;  the corporate controlled government, is NOW coming after me, we must do something" 


    First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller
    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me


    Selfish self- serving zealots?

    ‘Ten thousand times has the labor movement stumbled and fallen and bruised itself, and risen again; been seized by the throat and choked and clubbed into insensibility; enjoined by courts, assaulted by thugs, charged by the militia, shot down by regulars, traduced by the press, frowned upon by public opinion, deceived by politicians, threatened by priests, repudiated by renegades, preyed upon by grafters, infested by spies, deserted by cowards, betrayed by traitors, bled by leeches, and sold out by leaders, but notwithstanding all this, and all these, it is today the most vital and potential power this planet has ever known,”


    Now the traitors want our help ?

    This is not an argument for anything resistance, it is an attack. Obviously your favorite response to anyone who disagrees with your premises, and best of all you throw the word traitor around just like Bush did, as if I can ever be on the side of anyone who believes I am a traitor. I am not a traitor. I am a proud Democrat, I've been working the trenches now for almost 30 years, you don't get to lecture me, you don't get to call me a traitor, I see you like to do that on blogs though, do you do that in real life? Do you call people who disagree with you traitors, don't lecture me, get out there and work for the change you want to see, otherwise you can STFU, because I work for the change I believe in, you call names.

    You really are a lame excuse for a human being.

    Let me guess you drive an import and you shop at Wal-Mart?

    American workers, support American workers…….Union members support Union members.

    I figured you'd walk right into the BS your dishing out.

    You picked up on the traitor part quickly enough though, (conscience perhaps bothering you, or maybe "The lady doth protest too much, methinks. ...) 

    You totally avoided answering the call to come to the aid of the American worker,  instead; you trot out how you've been working the trenches as a Democrat these last 30 years; as though that gave you the  “Red Badge of Courage”, as though being a democrat is equated to being a "Good American"   

    Have you no shame, that you have been lulled into accepting the” illusive phantom of hope” ? 

    Why aren't you on the front lines, overthrowing the Capitalist parties propaganda instead of supporting the lesser of the two-evils? 

    Instead you tell us how we should all be good democrats and then you attack me for pointing out the futility.  

    Our forefathers pointed out this difference, when those who were loyal supporters of the Crown, were identified as not being Good Americans. …..Many loyalists were branded as traitors, because they continued to support the purchase of British goods, instead of supporting their fellow American colonists.  

     The R’s and the small r’s, (called Dems;  in order to confuse the working class into believing in HOPE.) 

    YES WE CAN if only they’d let us   . 

    I have no intentions of drinking the Democrats Kool-Aid anymore than I would the Republicans   

    Ramona tells me we have many things in common? If you loved Freedom as much as I, you’d recognize the futility of thinking the Democratic party cares more for you, than they do their Capitalist benefactors. 

    Did you get a bailout? Were you made economically sound, or are you still an indebted wage slave, all-full of HOPE?

    Keep dreaming the democrats are the working class’ saviors, until they too, have you bound and tied    

    "Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry 

    Shall we keep trusting the Democrats; offer no resistance to their continued machinations, until people like you, wake up?  I’ d rather be offensive than to be fooled.

    WAKE UP PEOPLE,  should I hang a light in the North church so you can see more clearly?

    You write  You really are a lame excuse for a human being.

    I was warned to be aware of people like you

    35 “Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#20

    Go get your thirty pieces of silver from your corporate masters, go work the lines in support of the corporation’s handmaidens

    That whole diatribe appears to be premised on your assumption that she drives an import (whatever that even means anymore) and shops at Wal-Mart. If your assumptions are right, you're making an argument for why you think that's a bad idea (how effectively you're arguing that is a separate question), but if your assumptions are wrong, then you're arguing with a unicorn.

    Ergo, Tmac is either a traitor or a unicorn.

    I vote unicorn. Is there a prize?

    It was trick question. She's a trainicorn.

    A unicorn with training wheels? Didn't know they had those.

    Don't be fooled by appearances, look under the tail and tell me what you see?

    Either a traitor or a unicorn?

    Unicorns are fictitious.

    Which was exactly my point. You appear to be arguing with a tmac that there is no evidence actually exists, or who you think tmac is. Maybe you're right, but I'm guessing your ability to read minds isn't significantly better than mine.

    Well you decide... LOL Genghis.

    The Democrats aren't traitors, only ineffectual... they are merely a shadow, a hollowed out shell, of Roosevelt's once powerful coalition for progress.

    Most Democrats are not traitors David, but some are.  Those who are, unfortunately, are most likely to be the ones who have been elected to office and particularly those elected to federal office.  These folks are primarily professional office seekers.  They typically go to college and then grad school and start running for office.  Their primary reason for existence is to hold office: not to forward the Democratic agenda.  Few of them know anything about the New Deal or the bedrock Democratic principles that made the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy the rock of the middle class in this country.  Obama, for example, clearly does not believe in some of the most basic New Deal principles and has said as much over and over particularly when it comes to job creation.  He is a Republican on that subject and there's no two ways about it.  He has said time and again that only the private sector can create jobs when we know that is simply untrue and like most Washington politicians exempts government jobs related to defense spending which is preposterous.  Many others in DC share this mindset.  Most of the careerist Democratic office holders have never had a day in their lives when they wondered what would become of them and their families and for most of those that might have had that experience it was decades ago when they were children.  In other words, they have little in common with the common people of the nation and that is one major reason they do so little to respond to the enormous crises facing common citizens and families today like mass unemployment, the foreclosure debacle and the like.  Because their aim is to be office holders and not to forward any agenda on behalf of the common citizens they service those who our system is designed to service: predatory wealth and power.  When they serve those interests first and not those of the common people then they are traitors and that mode of operation is all too common in Washington, DC.

    Just because you may disagree with policies or whatever it is you disagree with, Democrats are not traitors, that is lame, it isn't an argument for anything, except that you think you get to label other American's traitors. How does that make you any different from a TBag?

    Your argument is intellectually weak and based on nothing more than your opinion. You clearly do not know what this President believes or what are his core ideologies. There are no discussions if you've already decided some Democrats are traitors simply because you've defined in your own mind what is a traitor. You clearly don't want to discuss anything. The President has spent years in the trenches with his community service work. But because he cannot change things instantaneously you've just called him a traitor, that makes you no better than the wingers.

    As I've said before and will reiterate one more time, you all are welcome to really join us in the trenches, but clearly you would rather lay blame for all that is bad, without ever lifting a finger to do anything to make those changes you want to see. It is so much easier to blame isn't it, then you never have responsibilty to make changes.

    After thrirty years and you still can't see the futiity?  

    I like you T.  As I recall sometime ago I got the impression we were about the same age.  You seem to assume you know and know about everyone who's got experience "in the trenches".  You need to rethink that.  There are plenty of people who have been in the trenches as long as you and some longer who agree with my faction in assessing the sell out first Democratic strategy that has not only betrayed the great tradition of the Democratic Party since FDR but have betrayed the country as well.  That is an opinion for sure but it is backed by an almost endless stream of facts.  These facts are typically things that folks in your faction don't want to hear and consider any mention of these facts as unhelpful attacks on officeholders who are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances and who will, incrementally, make things better.  Well, first off if that's right then you still have to be alive for the next 100+ years is you want to see any of that come to fruition given the glacial pace of forward movement provided by the corporate/DLC Democrats of Washington. Some of us no longer believe their schtick about incrementalism moving us forward since ever time they capitulate to the opposition and call it compromise the nation moves backwards.  I know you don't agree with this view but we both have a right to our views whether or not the other likes it.  I happen to believe that the record of failure, capitulation and retreat taken by the Democrats now for 30+ years has been a really, really bad thing and that continuing down that path is only going to make things worse than they are.

    Now, as to some of the facts I'm not going to go on and on but I'll provide a very short list here just to demonstrate my opinion has a factual basis:

    Obama lied about FISA and voted to allow retroactive immunity to telecoms and when he committed that lie he promised to correct defects in the legislation once elected which was another quite transparent lie even when he made it.  Lies and flip flops are betrayals.  Traitors to a cause betray their side.

    He promised to let the Bush tax cuts expire because he knew that was bad for America, bad for our budget and bad for our future.  He flip flopped anyway and extended the tax cuts for the rich knowing the harm it will bring and how very unlikely it is that they will now ever be repealed.

    He lied to the nation about his healthcare reform plan campaigning on the public option as absolutely vital to "keeping them honest" and then almost instantly secretly agreed to kill the public option in return for the support of big pharma and insurance.  He lied about this bill and his real position throughout the year the legislation was in play and continues to lie about the secret deal he made with the wealthy interests he swore he wouldn't make backroom deals with.  That's a massive flip flop and lie and betrayal.  He betrayed us on that.

    He said he would support cram down power for judges in bankruptcy proceedings to help homeowners and flip flopped abandoning that for the opposite position which benefits his friends in the banking industry.  Obama has done almost nothing to stem the foreclosure crisis which has proceeded apace without any respite since 2008.  He promised quite explicitly to help homeowners and to have the banks and other bad actors in finance be made to answer for their malfeasance.  Instead, Obama's policies on foreclosure have been virtually identical to those of Bush: banker friendly and homeowner unfriendly.  Millions have lost their homes thanks to his betrayal.

    All of his policies in the mythical war on terror are simple extentions of the Bush era policies of onconstitutional usurpations of power, spying on innocent Americans, continuation of torture while pretending he ended it, secretly kidnapping people all over the world and holding them endlessly incommunicado outside the rule of law and much more.  These are betrayals of his clear promises to end all those abuses and usurpations and return the rule of law to the US. 

    The day after his inauguration he promised that "transparency will be the hallmark of my Presidency" and has since pursued policies even less transparent, more secretive and vindictive even than those of the Bush regime.  That's a massive lie, flip flop and betrayal.

    He appointed the catfood commission stacked with people who were known enemies of social security and medicate in an attempt to put both of those bedrock Democratic programs up on the chopping block.  His effort was thwarted by massive opposition in DC and across the country.  His pledges to maintain both those programs are betrayed by that action as well as his many very Republicans statements about needing to address social security which is perfectly sound.  That is a betrayal of the very heart of the New Deal and our Democratic heritage.

    I could go on with literally hundreds of other instances.  All of these things are facts.

    And, by the way, I have been served on every conceivable committee, knocked on countless doors, made innumerable phone calls, stood at the polls, attended monthly meetings and all that since I about 1970 when I was 12.  I think that qualifies as being in the trenches.

    Uh, oleeb, I hate to break it to you, but neither Roosevelt nor Kennedy ever had to worry a day in their lives either. They both came from extremely rich and well-connected familes, and they were essentially raised to become politicians. That's in rather stark contrast to Obama.

    So, instead of addressing the point which is that today's office holders are quite different from those of the FDR and Kennedy eras you glom on to one tiny facet of what I had to say thinking you've found a technical flaw and are making some startling point.  You fail.

    They lived in a different world than Obama ever did.  They lived through the truly rotten days of the early twentieth century and they believed in the bedrock ideas of the New Deal.  They udnerstood why it was important to safeguard the common people's intererst and to force the rich to curb their greed.  They understood how bankrupt are the policies of the oligarchy which they could easily have chosen to defend but didn't because it was not only wrong but the wrong thing to do.  Obama didn't and doesn't but that wasn't my main point was it?  No indeed.  It was that Obama and the majority of current Democratic office holders are careerist office holders primarily interested in holding office and that they neither identify with or wish to serve the common people and their record (including Obama's) clearly demonstrate that.  They identify with those they serve: the rich.  They wish to be rich themselves. They are me-firsters like Obama whose primary objective is their own agrandizement, power and advancement and not carrying forward the principles of the Democratic Party or any other party for that matter.  They'll say and do whatever is good for them.

    Now, do you want to attempt to refute the real point of my comment which is the problem of our modern careerist Democratic officeholders who don't believe in the New Deal?  I'm all ears on that.

    Resistance, your answer to McCarthy comes out of nowhere.  If you don't agree with her on her points, then stick to them and tell us why you don't agree.  She has a viewpoint worth discussing, and so far I don't see you addressing anything but your usual talking points.  Valid as they may be, they're meaningless when you're using them to attack someone whose views are probably closer to yours than you might think.

    If you'll notice I did address her comments, She should have seen the broad brush she was using, slopped the paint all over her too. ...If we are being asked to protect our fellow Democrats, I want to be assured they deserve to be protected.

    Don't come crying for help, if all along you were shoving your middle finger in my face, telling me to STFU.    

    If you want to sling garbage make sure it doesnt come back and hit you.

    The protestors in Wisconsin are similar to the democratic party; were you as good of Union members to my cause or my greivances when I was crying for help; or did you throw me under the bus? Now when you are in trouble I should come running?

    I'm past  identifying  the produce that has been reaped, because I know what sowed it.

    Exporting Jobs hurt American workers, did it hurt the Democratic leadership?

    A democratic leadership that year after year could pont out the bad fruitage, getting us to beleive they would bring forth better fruit.

    Why would they; the bad fruit could be sold because thats all there was, Why change a profitable system?     

    What did the workers in Wisconsin or for that matter did the American worker do, to prevent this attack?

    What did the Democratic party do, to prevent this attack?     

    If you don't like the Democratic party, that's fine.  What's your alternative?  What's your solution?  Why would you denigrate someone like TMcC who is out there in the trenches doing what she can in her own community?

    TMcC is only reaping what was sowed a few weeks ago.

    The traitor comment is one of her TMcC' constructs, she applied it to herself, so I'll oblige

    Debs only pointed out how traitors have undermined the Labor movement.

    The Democratic Party forsook its position, as a representative of the working class, it sought another suitor; until the next election, when they need labors vote.

    Nader told us how labor is hostage to the Democratic Party, Why did the working class vote against their self-interest?

    Because the Democrats told everyone, how if they voted for NADER it was just a wasted vote.

    Same thing with Perot, he warned us about NAFTA and how was Perot rewarded? He tried to get a third party going to counter the corporate establishment except the servants of the Democratic Party came to the aid of the Corporate Party.

    The lackeys of the democratic/republican party convinced the electorate, how the vote is wasted if you vote for NADER.

    Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

    "Don't you dumb slaves, even consider not voting for a corporate controlled government".

    WHY don't you tell me Ramona, which Party will stop the EXPORTING of JOBS and the importation of Foreign goods; the most fundamental foundation for a vibrant middle class ? 

    Any other issue is secondary; any other issue without addressing the foundation of all of our working class ills is futile

    If it turns out the TEA PARTY becomes the champion of that fundamental movement, guess what? The Democratic free traders can find another slave class to serve them. 

    Let the democrats know we are not hostages to be pulled out of the deep pit, only during election time.

    Obama lied to labor, where is the accountability?

    If TMcC is going to serve another and she doesn't recognize that we as a Working class will never be served, without first stopping the exporting of jobs, stopping the importation of foreign goods,  that can be manufactured here at home,  I don't  care how many years she served in opposition to the REAL needs of the working class.

    So she painted the house knowing the house had a bad foundation and is about to crumble?

    Good work TMcC The paint looks good

    Solutions, Resistance. What are the solutions?

    For one solution;  turn the protests in Wisconsin and Ohio into a march on Washington. Overturn at the National level, these detrimental trade agreements, NOW

    Where do you stand Democrat?  

    Tell Corporate America, "for even considering trying to overturn collective bargaining YOU will pay a price" . 

    Turn the tables. NOW before the next election, where do our Representatives stand?

    Maybe when Corporate America sees the ground swell of discontent and the spreading fire is about to consume Corporate Americas (Exporting jobs and importing foreign goods fattening their purses) they'll tell other States considering right to work laws.

     "Back off..... The people are agitated enough to stop our money machine"   

    When the Republicans tell us, we need to pay down the deficit, tell them we agree; raise the revenues through Duties and the Tariffs.

    If you don’t want to pay the taxes…….. on these foreign goods, don't buy them. 

    Tax yourself if you buy these goods, how simple is that. We didn’t force you to buy them,   

    The Tea Party wants to be free; they want our sovereignty back. These folks are the same people who thought Free trade was wrong.

    Join forces with them, just as the Democrats and the Tea Party cut defense spending in Boners State.

    Use the TEA PARTY to accomplish what we want. We can find a common ground with these folks.

    STOP THE EXPORTING OF JOBS, raise duties and Taxes on the importation of foreign goods, to strengthen America.

    Do you think the Washington DC Democrats want to stop the Exporting of Jobs, or is it just lip service?  Find out NOW before the next election cycle, before we become fooled again. 

    If We the working class don't get industry to return to America, we are doomed.  

    Oh Resistance,  King of Know-nothings, your arguments are weak, intellectually dishonest, and you paint yourself as incredibly judgmental, needing to find enemies in every corner. You stretch yourself to build straw men made of hate so you can find reasons that my work is wrong and not worthy. You call me a traitor as if that is acceptable.  If you didn't have an enemy you would disappear into an abyss of hate. Oh my... you don't like me, wow that hurts.  In case you cannot tell Resistance, that line was IRONY.

    You don't want to work to change anything and you want to yell at me because I stand up and work for what I believe in, and to top things off you write tl;dr diatribes attempting to shut me up, then you jump to where you think I shop and what I drive to what end Resistance, seriously, to what end? What is your end game? Do you do this so I won't come back here? I just want to know WTF? Are you calling me unAmerican once again by insinuating I shop at unAmerican places and drive unAmerican cars when you literally know nothing about me, about where I shop, or what I drive?  I don't know man you are working awfully hard to continually call me unAmerican and a traitor and all that stuff and it still makes me think you are a miserable excuse for a human being.

    God help the American worker if you’re a representation, of the direction of the Democratic Party,

    In all your vitriol about my character, did you ever seek to debate or agree with my contentions that the key to our financial freedom as Americans, lies with supporting American workers?

    My opinion, the Exportation of Jobs and the importation of foreign goods have destroyed the middle class?

    While you were painting whitewash, on the head stone of the Democratic Party, because they failed to represent the majority of the American middle class; the middle class workers left the democratic party

    Let me remind you, it was a Democratic President that gave us NAFTA;  a policy complicit in the destruction of the middle class.

    Where is the Democratic Party on the issue of Jobs? More lip service;  more smart- ass party hacks; telling me to work within the system?

    ANY American buying an imported car or product, should move to that country of origin; since they want to support that foreign Nation financially, over their own fellow Americans.

    I don’t want you to go away, the more you attack me; you prove why the Democrats continue to lose.

    Don’t listen to me; I admit I don’t know as much as your highness does. Don’t listen to me because I’m sure not buying what you’re selling and either is the majority or the working class.

    ANY American buying an imported car or product, should move to that country of origin; since they want to support the foreign Nation financially, over their own fellow American

    This is an argument that is not taken seriously by many as it's not currently possible to buy something like an American-made computer or or a computer made completely in Shanghai or Germany for that matter. The parts are made in different places around the world and usually assembled in yet another place. It would take a long time and a lot of change to even get back to a place where you can threaten people with that.

    And what's your opinion of these American jobs created by foreigners:

    Hyundai's Swift Growth Lifts Alabama's Economy

    The car maker laid down roots and provided jobs for thousands in Alabama as local textile mills closed.

    where there might be a significant number of American workers damn happy with the pay and benefits and damn happy if Americans are buying the cars these Americans make there like they are hotcakes (probably not 100% American made parts but the article implies they are certainly heading in that direction with continually starting up suppliers in the U.S., too.) And also some of those maybe not looking forward to the UAW's plans for them given Detroit's recent history and all.

    It would take a long time and a lot of change to even get back to a place where you can threaten people with that. 

    Are you saying it's too late? Corporations have already won?  

    It's worth noting that our country wasn't founded with a party system, and many of our founding fathers correctly predicted it would be our undoing.  There are rotten apples *and* patriots on both sides.

    Latest Comments