The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    To Vote or Not to Vote, That Is the Question

    By Michael Wolraich on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 3:43pm | Politics

    As this grim election stalks up to us--so close now, you can hear its claws click against the stone--the simmering rage and frustration on the left has become a hot frenzy, and my fellow bloggers are snarling and nipping at one another's heels.

    The question that divides us so bitterly is whether to support the Democratic party in its moment of desperation or to thrash it for its many failures.

    For me, personally, there is no question. I can see the dark clouds blowing in. I remember too well what an angry, powerful Republican party will do to a sitting president that its constituents despise and how the ugly storm of controversy can smother the countryside. I remember also the shame, fear, and frustration of being governed by people I despise. It's too soon after twelve years of disastrous Republican dominance to give them their House back to do with what they please. I will vote.

    But I can appreciate the anger of those who won't. Moreover, I'm not sure that they don't have it right. For the problem runs deeper than this policy or that one and whether the president furrows his brow in a sufficiently angry manner when discussing his opponents. The Democratic party has lost its core. Political ideology has slowly evaporated in the sun, leaving behind only a vague residue of "good government." Except that it's not even "good government" but "better government," a deflated virtue that promotes itself by warning of the alternative.

    I've studied how right-wing fire-breathers rose up in protest against the mealy-mouthed moderates who once ran the Republican party. I've seen how they attacked their own leaders and suffered election losses but also injected political passion into their quiescent allies. I've followed their course from the weak rump of a powerless minority party to the overlords of the ruling majority.

    And I think sometimes, maybe we need some of that. Maybe the Democratic party will never rebuild its core until someone delivers a painful kick to its backside.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more on the history of right-wing politics, read Blowing Smoke - Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies about the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior into a Raging Homosexual.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    I've been sympathetic to this as well, and to the Republican activist willingness to take a loss here or there while setting up new stars for the long-run.  Sometimes during this cycle I've looked up from my computer screen and thought, "I'd getting worked up over Harry Reid?  Why?"

    I'd suggest this as a compromise.  Go and vote.  If you're in a very safe district and there's a third party liberal challenger near one of the top federal races then go for it and vote third party.  If, as I suspect, you're worried about the prospects for your Democrat then vote strategically for them but also find some progressives to support down the ballot.  Just by showing up you can help an unknown progressive running for a minor office that you were going to vote party line for anyway.

    I think not showing up just isn't an option since no-shows don't get counted at all.  It's also fun to vote.  Since Andrew Cuomo seems to not have much of an opponent in New York's gubernatorial race I think I'll have some fun at the expense of the Democrats and vote for Green candidate Howie Hawkins.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 4:01pm

    Genghis, I'm with you on almost everything you've said (as you know).  The party as a whole is a disappointment and an enigma.  But looking at Dems in congress individually, it's a mixed bag with a good number of them questioning the WH and siding with libs/progs on issues that are making us crazy.

    They are the ones who give me hope, even though their voices aren't necessarily the loudest.  But as you've noted, we're not just fighting the Republicans, we're fighting an insidious, nasty Right Wing junta wannabee.  They're dangerous and I won't pretend the outcome of the election doesn't matter.  It does.  It mightily does.


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 4:04pm

    I think this is a no-brainer. Vote. Vote Democratic.

    If you're not happy enough with the current Democrats, focus on what you can do between this election and the next one to make Democrats better: volunteering, donating, and backing more progressive candidates. There are 729 days to have arguments inside the party, and for those 729 days "better than a Republican" doesn't cut it. On the 730th day, every other November, it's strictly an argument with the other party, and on Day 730 "this isn't the Democrat I wanted" doesn't cut it.

    If you think your quarterback is doing everything wrong and the game plan is too timid, you can't effectively change that by giving the other side the ball. If you want to call a different set of plays, you need your team to keep possession.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:01pm

    I agree with you, more or less, but "Get out there and support team" is a terrible rhetorical strategy. Many of the people who don't want to vote don't feel that it's their team anymore.

    And that's the point. Democrats are losing their key players. They have neglected their base. Partly, they've taken it for granted, and partly they no long offer a vision that excites people. They're running on the position that the other folks are worse, so you'd better hold your nose and support us. Go team.

    And frankly, as long as the people respond to this appeal, Democrats are unlikely to try to come up with a better strategy. You can bitch and moan for 729 days, but if you don't back that up on the 730th day, politicians will ignore you.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:58pm

    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.

     

     


    by Doctor Cleveland on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 9:56pm

    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.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 9:40am

    Not voting, not supporting democrats despite the many reasons that make people want to scream at our democratic leaders with their vote, to me that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face i.e. self-destructive. 

    We have to consider the impact on us personally, on our fellow Americans, and do whatever we can to help the democrats keep the majority not for their sake but for ours.

    Some want to say let it all fall apart but that's their anger talking and they are not considering the real impact for our children, our seniors, our poor, etc.  The least of us will suffer more if we let the republicans take us further down the road that led us here.

    We definitely have to fight to change our election system.  Even with disclosure, corporations are free to purchase as much influence as they need to buy the politicians and policies they want unless we fight back.  They have the money but we have the numbers.  We need to let every dollar spent to discourage us and drown out our voices encourage us to make our voices heard and get active.

    There is much we need to fight to change but we make that fight much harder to win if we don't vote and we let teh republicans regain control in congress.  So please vote.  Please help get out the vote.  And please volunteer on election day to help prevent voter intimidation, especially in poor and largely black districts.


    by synchronicity on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:16pm

    I always vote.  Even if the choice was between Hitler and Stalin, I would pick the least bad one and vote for him.  In this case the choices aren't nearly as bad in my state and district.

    The alternative of non-voting or voting for marginal third party candidates as a protest maneuver has never proved effective in the past.   The Dems just move further right to try to capture more of the middle.

    After the election, I'm interested in looking for ways to help launch a new movement that would function as a sort of party-within-a-party, to help eat away the rot of the Democratic party from the inside.

     

     


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:31pm

    Here's my view, fwiw: the two parties seem on one level to have indistinguishable legislative agendas: both parties plan to do exactly nothing. If the dems have the majority, they will try to pass some spending bills and let themselves get filibustered. If the GOP get the majority they will try to embarrass the Dems with a barrage of 'gotcha' votes, and maybe start some investigations. But basically nothing is on the agenda. With one MAJOR exception: if they get the House majority, the GOP will manufacture a budget crisis, just as they did in the nineties. And this time things will not turn out as harmlessly for the Dems as fifteen years ago. The administration is just not in a position to play hardball. And by 'position', I mean FISCAL position. In the nineties, Clinton had basically fixed the fiscal problems of the country with his tax hikes. Right now things stand very differently with the recent crucial failure to let the Bush tax cuts at least partially sunset. If there is a budget crisis, the bond markets will revolt because they no longer trust the dysfunctional US political system, and demand immediate repairs to the US's long-term deficits. And note, how conveniently and timely, the deficit commission will just have put a set of SocSec and Medicare cuts on the President's table. So the 'emergency' will be used as an excuse by the administration to pass some bi-partisan bills gutting entitlements. That is my rather grim belief - or rather my worry. There is still a chance that the Corporate Elite backing this GOP zombie army might decide all-out economic chaos is not in their interests. But I wouldn't put my money on it. These midterms are very important for anyone who doesn't want the gains of the New Deal and the Great Society largely rolled back. This isn't the time to start applying little game-theoretic calculations... (I've already said this a few weeks back someplace, so apologies for the repetition)

    by Obey on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:45pm

    When is the time to start applying "little game-theoretic calculations"?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:14pm

    My point is that the economy is so unstable that the GOP can do real damage. And of course, thanks to the mismanagement of the noughties, now it will remain unstable for the foreseeable future, so I guess my answer is... never. Looking back, however, I think in a somewhat contrarian manner that the Naderites were very successful in pushing Gore left. Bush won rather because Gore's campaign tragically miscalculated where to invest their time and funds, and of course the Supremes throwing the Law to the wind didn't help. But now we've learned all the wrong lessons from that episode, imo. Now I don't mean to retread old old debates, but if you want a real-world case where such a voter-revolt might work, 2000 is the best I can come up with.

    by Obey on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:38pm

    There are plenty of real-world cases, but the recent ones are on the right:

    • 1978 A number of liberal Republican legislators were unseated by the right and the seats lost to Democrats
    • 1980 Conservatives buck moderate establishment in choosing Reagan
    • 1988 Pat Robertson's presidential campaign pushes Bush Sr. right
    • 1992 Pat Buchanan gives keynote address at convention, Republican conseratives rebel against moderate leadership in Congress
    • 1994 After 14 years of right-wing insurgencies and purges, conservatives take control of Senate and House for 12 years (except for a brief interruption in the Senate), the first Republican-controlled government since 1952.

    It's a long-term strategy, and it will result in short-term losses, but you have to start reform somewhere. If we keep rewarding bad candidates for expediency's sake, Democrats will never climb out of their rut.

    I'm not fully convinced of my own logic, and I really like the centrists and pragmatists. I'm definitely voting. But I become more and more convinced that for Democrats to start winning, really winning, they need to energize their base. To do that, they need to abandon the big tent and focus on ideology.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 7:12pm

    I'll vote for Dems, even hold my nose and vote for Michael Bennett for Senator, given his Tea Party opposition.  There are still a few remaining things even Corporate Dems are better on:  SCOTUS Justices, abortion rights, and civil rights (if you don't count unconstitutional wiretapping, email and phone call recordings, etc.)

    And Dems still seem to want to have some regulatory bodies: agriculture, food and water safety, an EPA.  And at least for now, they don't want to force me to be a Christian...ist.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:54pm

    Oh well the obstructionist party should be shunned. And the in power party is abysmal.

    So let us not vote at all.

    I grew up in a racist household in the 50's and I knew that there was right and wrong.

    But we were all dems.

    And this was a racist country.

    But I would take Huey Long over any bastard that was for 'growth' cause they were all repub bastards.

    Reagan won that argument because Americans thought they were on a ride to easy street after Carter said that everyone has to cut back.

    The racist dems went repub.

    We had lost our coalition, we had lost our deal with the devil.

    The dems need to bring in the middle class somehow. They are losing their incomes and their houses, their jobs have been downsized or they are about to lose those jobs.

    We need to fire up the real fear.

    The fear of the loss of the middle class.

    Oh and we always, ALWAYS, must turn out the vote against the repubs.

    the end

     

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 6:33pm

    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.


    by bdtex on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 7:58pm

    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.

     


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 1:36am

    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.


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 9:15am

    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. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 10:56am

    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


    by we are stardust on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 11:05am

    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.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:19pm

    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.


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:29pm

    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.


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:13pm