dagblog - Comments for "10 Questions for The Tea Party"

Look here to see how it works

SleepinJeezus — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:33:23 +0000

In reply to And we had a resurgence of

Look here to see how it works to move the political system to the place we are at today, and then tell me just how successful the DLC have been in championing the cause of the middle class in the political arena. Or take a look at where the redistribution of income has occurred in the last thirty years and at the relative power balance between the working class and the corporations/wealthy and tell me how successful the DLC has been.

There's more to leadership than simply devising cynically strategic responses to poll numbers with a singular goal of "winning elections." And if you take a step back to get the long-term perspective, you really don't have to look very hard to see it is true. We are losing the Class War, mainly because it hasn't been in the strategic interest of the poll-watching opportunists in the Dem Party to actually get into the fight.

And we had a resurgence of

brewmn — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:15:42 +0000

In reply to It really doesn't stretch

And we had a resurgence of Democratic electoral success using the DLC playbook. You can't effect even the moderate changes to governmental policy we've seen if you can't first get elected; and no one on the left has made a concinving case (to me, at least) that we could win a national election if we ran on a platform much further left than the Clinton/Obama/DLC one.

As I have stated before, I never voted for Bill Clinton in a primary. He was unacceptably "Republican-lite" to me. But, if you can't see light years of difference between the Clinton presidency and the one that followed, or between Bush II and the current one, I really have to question your political judgment, if not your grasp on reality.

It really doesn't stretch

SleepinJeezus — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:10:44 +0000

In reply to Agree with just about

It really doesn't stretch common sense at all.

The whole DLC playbook is built upon the strategy that the best place to be on the ideological spectrum is somewhere just to the left of the Republicans. There's an inescapable logic to it if your only objective is to win elections without consideration of principles or ideals. It also leaves lots of room to appease the monied owners without losing the left altogether. "Where you gonna' go?" they ask us when we cry "foul." "The Republicans are worse than we are! And so, you gotta' vote Dem or suffer the consequences."

As I say: The message is nothing more than "Don't call for help! No one will hear you!"

Agree with just about

brewmn — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:43:39 +0000

In reply to And it takes absolutely NO

Agree with just about everything you've written here. I just question whether the working and middle classes (or, eat least the members of those classes that can trouble themselves to get out and vote) will actually follow if the Dems did decide to lead. It stretches common sense to the breaking point to think that Democrats simply prefer a center-right country, and would continue to support a corporatist platform even if they could win elections running on a populist one.

And it takes absolutely NO

SleepinJeezus — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:30:35 +0000

In reply to "At its core, the TP is

And it takes absolutely NO political sophistication to confuse Dick Armey, Beckerhead, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the cynics who drive the TP bus with those disaffected voters who are attracted to the "Storm the walls and take no prisoners" message directed against Washington and the guvmint. It's very much a populist message that feeds - quite cynically, in this case - upon the same anxiety I feel that Washington is incapable of addressing the needs of the middle class to stand tall and fight the Class War.

And Obama and the Dems have done very little to assuage these fears. In fact, every time they sell us out in favor of their corporate owners, they make the case for the TP message that "Hey, you're on your own, kid. Don't call for help. No one will hear you."

You claim the TP is founded upon "mistrust of Dems in Washington." You get very little argument from me on this point. But, please, take a step back and look at the corporate ownership of Baucus and Conrad and Lieberman and Dodd and so many other Dems. Then, take a look at the way the corporate ownership of these key Dem players has absolutely stymied efforts of Dems to achieve anything like REAL reform or REAL relief for the middle class. Then, witness the way the rest of the Dem pols fail to stand up to these asshats and call them out for their whorish ways and their corruption. And THEN, finally, tell me that the Palooka-Dem DLC corporate whores deserve anything BUT contempt from the voters.

"Don't call for help, no one will hear you!" is hardly a winning message akin to "Change You Can Believe In." And this last Congress has offered little else to those who suffer under corporate ownership of this government.

If Washington ain't working, the political landscape is left wide open for whoever promotes an alternative, regardless of how cynical and ill-considered it might be. Enter Armey and his minions and their monies to paint a faux-populist picture that resonates with the disaffected voters. They've been allowed free reign to prey upon those who fear our government for what they see as the way in which it works at cross-purposes to the people. And Armey, et. al., are effective in this ONLY because our Dems can't quite pull themselves away from the corporate teat and get out of the pigsty long enough to actually LEAD the populist revolt against the porcine oppressors in this Class War.

Only if you consider Social

brewmn — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:56:28 +0000

In reply to Brew: Allow me to amend my

Only if you consider Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, civil rights and universal public education (for starters) "minor exceptions."

"At its core, the TP is

brewmn — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:53:45 +0000

In reply to Virtually every enduring

"At its core, the TP is founded upon a mistrust of our "government" in Washington."

No, it's founded on mistrust of Democrats in Washington. And it is a "populist" movement wholly dedicated to the protection of corporations and the wealthy from government regulation and taxation. They are mobilised exclusively because of what they view as the overreaching of the quasi-socialist Obama administration.

I will never understand why so many here on the left keep crediting the Teabaggers with a political sophistication and commitment to coherent principles that they don't possess. These people are not liberals' friends; and all that would make them turn against any policy they currently support is for a Democrat to come out in favor of it. and it doesn't say much about your skill at political analysis if you give them credit for anything other than reflexive opposition to any policy or person perceived as liberal.

Brew: Allow me to amend my

wws — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:59:18 +0000

In reply to "Both parties are

Brew: Allow me to amend my comment:

"In my opinion, in general (with minor exceptions) ..... both parties are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Big Business."

Better?

With apologies, I was not

SleepinJeezus — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:09:49 +0000

In reply to Virtually every enduring

With apologies, I was not able to format spacing between paragraphs or tabs at the beginning of paragraphs in the above comment.

Virtually every enduring

SleepinJeezus — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:08:18 +0000

In reply to Here is some reality on this

Virtually every enduring progressive development in US politics since the war has been sparked either by massive mobilisations outside of electoral politics that have forced politicians to respond

For all its perversions, the Tea Party phenomenon is precisely the kind of "massive mobilization outside of electoral politics" that should have forced a response from the DLC Corporately-owned Dems. At its core, the TP is founded upon a mistrust of our "government" in Washington. They treat with contempt the politics-as-usual crowd, sensing that Washington is a cesspool that is incapable of addressing the needs of the people.

I look at HCR, which gave us all the reform that the Insurance Industry will allow and nothing more, and I know they are right.

I look at Wall Street "reform" - which was written by the Wall Street lobbyists themselves and does virtually nothing to prevent the abuses that led to this present crisis - and I know they are right.

I look at a jobless recovery wherein we are told we simply must suck it up and understand that we must accept lower wages and inadequate employment so we can "remain competitive in a global economy" and I know they are right.

Despite these limitations, Obama has achieved more in just two years than any Democratic president in a full term since Lyndon Johnson

These "achievements" are in fact dubious for the fact that they are so severely compromised by their inability to embrace anything that isn't "pre-approved" by the corporate owners. They still represent "politics-as-usual" for Washington, and therefore invite the same contempt from the people who are supposedly represented by our elected pols who in turn serve first their corporate owners.

I agree that Obama is only one man. And I agree that is expecting alot of one man to stand tall against the wholesale corruption of our political system by refusing to accede to pay-to-play government. But it is precisely that which I thought we were getting when I voted for "Change You Can Believe In"; when I voted for someone who promised to "Change the way we do business in Washington." Indeed, it is precisely what this country longs for and will support.

Imagine, for example, if - on the eve of the Health Care Debate - we had a President with the balls to say "You know? I don't think we should give the Insurance Industry a pass on this one. At the very least, single-payer healthcare has proven itself to be a reasonable alternative to private insurance in other circumstances. I think it is incumbent upon us to at least open it up for an honest discussion on how we might best accomplish universal health care for ALL Americans."

This would have been followed up with "You know, Mr. Baucus? The American people really don't give a shit how many millions you can attract from the Health Insurance Industry by slow-walking this in your committee. I suggest you get a proposal to the floor of the Senate, or I'll work with the American people to make certain we get someone in that seat who will."

And ditto to Lieberman and Conrad and the rest of the obstructionists-for-hire who impede any legitimate effort to realize reform, whether in health care, or Wall Street, or any other arena in this Class War that has been launched against us.

At its core, I gotta' believe that the TP members feel the same anxiety I do about the inability of Washington to actually work for my interests. For so long as Obama chooses to abide the pay-to-play rules; for so long as he limits the reach of his policies and his reforms to only so far as his corporate owners will allow; he invites nothing but the contempt of those who see Washington as the problem and not the solution in confronting the Class War visited upon us.

"Massive mobilisations outside of electoral politics" is fancy talk for populist revolts. The TP is born of populism that has been twisted and perverted and steered into cynical directions by the very forces that actually oppress the membership. Yet, it remains a force that Obama (and the rest of the Dems) would do well to recognize and react with initiatives that show a new day has arrived in Washington in which the people's needs come first and foremost - and if that requires sticking it in the neck of a few corporate lobbyists, so be it.

I'd greatly welcome such a fight on behalf of the people's side in this Class War as a refreshing turn of events. And I'll bet Ma & Pa Tea Partier would do likewise.