dagblog - Comments for "To Vote or Not to Vote, That Is the Question"

BTW: Feingold is closing the

SleepinJeezus — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:13:46 +0000

In reply to Thanks, all, for the great

BTW: Feingold is closing the gap, and is now in a dead heat, two weeks before the election. NEVER count out a good Progressive!

I just sent him another $50 that I cannot afford to part with. I suggest you do the same.

Thanks, all, for the great

SleepinJeezus — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:29:27 +0000

In reply to I think you are wrong in the

Thanks, all, for the great discussion. I've only got a minute (frustrating!) to jump back in, so I hope to be able to get back to this later in the week.

For now, please understand that - in a democracy - I consider the vote to be sacred. I would never suggest anyone throw away their vote as a tool of protest against the supposedly Progressive side of a two party system of government. Make no mistake about it: This kind of action already burned us in Florida in 2000, and it's pretty easy to see that the consequences were devastating.

But my point is that it isn't really the base (like me!) that is required to ultimately win an election. Instead, it requires a strategy the attracts support of a MAJORITY of the voters. In terms of strategy, alone, the DLC policy of cynically positioning the party as "less crazy than the other side" while tacking to just this side of the Repubs in terms of ideology has failed miserably. Rather than be inspired by the DLC, the electorate has treated the DLC-style of politics with all the contempt it deserves.

From the days before Bill Clinton, the DLC has allowed the GOP to define the issues and - most importantly - define the terms used in the discussion. They have then cynically chosen to position themselves just to the left of wherever that happened to be. And it has brought us to where we are at today. It ain't a pretty picture.

For those who worry that a Repub win in November will "take us backwards," you are right. But don't look now. Thanks to the DLC Palooka-Dems, we've been going backwards for over forty years. I say it's time to stop and reverse direction, strategically. As in, how about getting out in front and LEADING the people out of the wasteland we now find ourselves in.

Meanwhile, the election cycle of 2010 could have been one helluva' fight. But thanks to the Palookas we got in Washington, we'll never know.

We are all responsible for

stillidealistic — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:19:34 +0000

In reply to I think you are wrong in the

We are all responsible for our own choices, and God knows there are a lot of reasons to be be angry with the current administration. I can even buy that you want to blame them for not inspiring us. But that doesn't change the fact that if we don't get out there and vote dem in great numbers, the repubs are back in.

Some dems think that the dem party may be better off strategically letting them have congress and blocking them. But I think that will be a dangerous gamble, because of those blasted blue dogs again, who I believe, WILL work with the repubs, because they need to get reelected, and that's all they care about.

Please do not get me wrong. I want to pass a strong liberal agenda. In my heart of hearts, I think we are capable of coming up with a way of blending the best of socialism with the best of capitalism for a uniquely American way of taking care of all of our people while at the same time rewarding those who come up with the ideas and risk their capital...it ain't gunna happen with the repubs in control, not ever in a million years. It might with the dems, but only if we give them the true majority they need, and continue to nudge the country left, a bit at a time. Cripes! I came over...surely I'm not the only one.

There is no doubt that Obama gave away too much, too soon. He admits it. And I can't promise he has learned his lesson. What I can promise, is that repubs take over again, the baby steps we've taken will be erased, and it will be awhile, perhaps a long while, before we get another chance to move forward.

So blame your lack of enthusiasm on whoever you want. Vote, or don't vote, for whoever you want. It's your choice. But ultimately it will be YOU who did it, and whose "fault" it is, won't protect people from what the repubs plan to do to those who need help and protection the most.

You go, Jeezus. From George

we are stardust — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:05:17 +0000

In reply to I think you are wrong in the

You go, Jeezus. From George Manbiot, Guardian:

"Common Cause proposes a simple remedy: that we stop seeking to bury our values and instead explain and champion them. Progressive campaigners, it suggests, should help to foster an understanding of the psychology that informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the advertising industry – that make us insecure and selfish.

Ed Miliband appears to understand this need. He told the Labour conference that he "wants to change our society so that it values community and family, not just work" and "wants to change our foreign policy so that it's always based on values, not just alliances … We must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line". But there's a paradox here, which means that we cannot rely on politicians to drive these changes. Those who succeed in politics are, by definition, people who prioritise extrinsic values. Their ambition must supplant peace of mind, family life, friendship – even brotherly love.

So we must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see.

• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website

Ok, stilli and sleepin'

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:56:25 +0000

In reply to I think you are wrong in the

Ok, stilli and sleepin' jeezus (as an aside, sleepin', I have to say that so taken am I with your previous icon at the cafe that whenever I have a visual image of you, it is of Studs himself!), two folks I have great respect and admiration for.

Sleepin, you wrote, in response to stilli's comment:

I think you are wrong in the way you assign responsibility for election wins and losses. It would seem to be a pretty irrefutable tautology that in a democracy, the candidate (or, in our case, Party) who loses is the one who fails to inspire the most voters to turn up at the polls.

Quibble: I believe we all have responsibility for who wins and loses elections, citizens as well as candidates. To me, trying to be a halfway decent citizen entails, above all, thinking and trying to make the best decisions I can under the circumstances.

Sure, it's one hell of a lot easier if I feel inspired. At the moment, I don't. Not even a little bit. I've not sought to hide my disgust about that. As a party activist I should have, and insist on, expectations for candidates and campaigns I am willing to support. Otherwise, there is little or no reason to think it will change. I've heard more and more discussion on this in the places where I'm hanging out online, quite a bit more than I've heard in the past. Yet to be determined whether that will translate into effective action going forward.

If I were a candidate I would focus on what I have some control over and look at it as though it's my responsibility to do everything I can to inspire and motivate people, instead of blaming citizens.

But I also believe we as citizens need both to make decisions based on whatever the, presently dismal, circumstances are, and do whatever we can to help create a better set of circumstances so as to avoid in future elections the dismal choices that many of us feel we have right now.

You're exactly right that the

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:40:16 +0000

In reply to Let me turn it around. Maybe

You're exactly right that the liberal and conservative bases have both anti-accomodationist since the 1960s with different results. The question is--why have they had different results?

The answer, I think, is that conservatism is a growing movement, while liberalism is dying. That explains 1) pretty easily.

As for 2), you're looking at it wrong. It's not that the Republican moderates (and liberals) were to wishy-washy. It's that the conservatives were too strong. They literally pushed all the liberals and almost all the moderates out of office in fiercely fought primaries. The liberal base, by contrast, has become small, disorganized, and disaffected. Again, conservatism is rising, and liberalism is dying.

3) Again, the media is just responding to the trends. Conservatives moving up, liberals going down.

In short, the key difference between LBJ and Goldwater was that Goldwater's nomination marked the birth of a movement, while LBJ's difficulties marked the end of one. For this reason, it's not enough for the base to just reject centrism, and maybe my advice comes too soon. We can't go back. But I think this new liberalism, whenever it arrives, will have to endure its Goldwater losses and divisive primaries as it ascends.

I think you are wrong in the

SleepinJeezus — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:15:02 +0000

In reply to I'm not going to be breaking

I think you are wrong in the way you assign responsibility for election wins and losses. It would seem to be a pretty irrefutable tautology that in a democracy, the candidate (or, in our case, Party) who loses is the one who fails to inspire the most voters to turn up at the polls.

After two years of screaming at the Dems in Washington to "Stand up and fight, dammit!" and "Get out and LEAD, fer chrissakes!", I will not allow you to set the stage for allowing these asshats to avoid taking responsibility for their strategic failure to do neither.

We could have had a helluva' fight! But we'll never know, because the spineless fools we had in the ring were too busy pandering to the center-right and to the monied owners, all because they were cocksure this was the way to win elections. They forgot to lead, which is the supposed reason we elect leaders. If ever there was a time in my lifetime to build a successful campaign on an alternative to failed Reaganomics and un-checked free market capitalism gone mad, this last two years has been it. Instead, we've been offered cynically strategic DLC-style positioning that abandons principle in favor of a sole focus on "winning elections."

Well, don't look now, but it seems their strategy went awry someplace along the line, and they are solely accountable for it. If we learn nothing else out of this debacle, we must decide once and for all that we elect LEADERS. We promote ALTERNATIVES to failed policies. And we SELL THEM to the electorate (as opposed to selling them out to the highest bidder on K Street) with a passion that arises from within us that these are the very best PRINCIPLES we can apply toward solving people's problems.

I know. Even as I write it, it seems like a quaint - perhaps even foreign - concept. But it's worked in the past during troubling times when nothing else would. And God knows, the pandering and the DLC-style political calculations founded upon nothing except "what will it take to win elections - let principles be damned!" - have failed us miserably.

Could have been one helluva' fight, dammit! But we will indeed never know. And the consequences for that are frightful. And we all know who to hold accountable for it, because it didn't have to be this way.

I'm not going to be breaking

stillidealistic — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:36:09 +0000

In reply to To Vote or Not to Vote, That Is the Question

I'm not going to be breaking any new ground here, but I'll repeat myself anyway.

I was a lifelong repub. I now despise that party with the same militancy that a reformed smoker has toward cigarettes.

I am not thrilled with the dems. This party is more dysfunctional than I ever would have imagined. Someone commented that keeping the dems in line is like herding cats, and then there's the old "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a democrat." Both statements are sadly true. It makes it very difficult to govern when it appears that you have a majority, when, in reality, you do not. Had Obama had a true 60-40 majority in the senate, we would not be in the mess we are now. When you have a good 16 blue dogs who could not get reelected if they voted for "librul" stuff, you are in trouble. But, they are in districts where a liberal could never get elected, and you take the majority (as it appears to be) and have to compromise with the repubs...It is what it is.

But, in days past, the repubs would at least compromise. This time it's different. They decided they were screwed, and tried a bold move...just say no. No matter what, even if it is stuff we supported under a republican prez, say no. We CANNOT allow this, this, whatever HE is, to be successful. Not in OUR country. And it worked.

If there were not one other reason to vote for a dem, that would be enough for me. We cannot allow that kind of mentality to succeed. If you thought they were whacked before, watch out. Emboldened with the their success as a minority party, you just watch what they do with the majority now.

Frankly, I think the majority of them are all alike...republicrats. They are more interested in getting reelected than they are in really doing what is right for the country. They are bought and paid for by the corporations and special interests. The whole system is broken, and it matters little who the individuals are. If they aren't corrupt when they get there, they will be soon.

I don't believe we see any real change until we get the lobbyists and the money out of politics.

But until then, I'll vote dem every time, because those damn republicans are worse than the dems, even if it isn't by a whole bunch. And in spite of how good it feels to vote 3rd party, a vote for anyone other than a dem, or not voting, is the same as voting for a republican, and there is absolutely no way you can twist the logic of it no matter how hard you try. No matter how moral and upstanding your reasons, the result is the same...the repubs win.

So, if you truly believe the repubs are more likely to do the right thing for this country, then go for it. Vote green, vote socialist, vote martian, for all I care. Or, don't vote. But be prepared to take your share of the responsibility for a repub win. Because you will own it.

Let me turn it around. Maybe

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:56:46 +0000

In reply to I agree with you, more or

Let me turn it around. Maybe the liberal and conservative bases have both anti-accomodationist since the 1960s, at least, but with different results.

The conservatives backed Goldwater in 1964, leading to disaster, and Reagan in 1980, leading to success.

The liberals rebelled against LBJ in 1968 and Carter in 1980, leading to failure and two-term Republican presidencies.

Conservatives balked at supporting Poppy Bush in 1992, and lost.

Liberals balked at supporting Al Gore in 2000, and helped swing that election the other way. It's okay; there didn't turn out to be much difference between Bush and Gore.

It's not so much that the right-wing and left-wing bases have different strategies. They've always followed the same strategies. What's different is that the results are assymetrical.

1) The conservatives win some and lose some, but the liberals seem to have been losing ground without making much up for the last 40 years. Every setback has taken us further back. So losing now to win later doesn't sound great to me any more.

2) The Republican moderates have been too wishy-washy to resist their base, and they've been driven out. The Democratic moderates seem deeply frustrated with their base, and see <strike>them</s> us as politically self-destructive. I'm not endorsing that view; I'm just reporting what seems to be the case.

3) When the conservatives bring the Republicans down, no one views that as significant. Whenever the Republicans beat the Democrats, even if the key problem was the disaffection of the Democratic base, it is always cast in the media as a rejection of liberalism by an increasingly conservative country. Flower power destroys LBJ and opens the way for Nixon? Voters rejecting the hippies, moving back to conservative values. Carter weakened in the primary? America embraces new Reagan conservative era. Nader voters spoil a squeaker, which then gets settled by five of the Supremes? We're a center-right nation afflicted with "Clinton fatigue."

Progressive base stays home and Dems lose the Senate? The "TRIUMPH OF THE TEA PARTY" headlines have already been written and the type is set to go. They're just waiting to ink the letters.

That's never a question for

bdtex — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:58:17 +0000

In reply to To Vote or Not to Vote, That Is the Question

That's never a question for me. I don't watch from the sidelines or heckle from the bleachers. I'm in and I'm in it for the long haul. There are some years that I'm not real enthusiastic about the choices and some years that I don't enter a vote in all the races on the ballot but I'm always enthusiastic about voting. I take pride in being an active participant. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been ridiculing me over my donations and other contributions to the DCCC,DSCC,DNC,DGA,Progressive Change Campaign Committee and individual candidates. "A fool and his money...." yada! yada! yada! Most of 'em have no skin in the game and never do. They can't understand. I just smile at 'em and do what I do.