David Frum offers the CW surrounding the potential defeat of incumbents in tomorrow’s elections:
We used to say that the far right and far left were the “tails that wagged the dogs.” Now, the dogs have disappeared, leaving only the violently flailing tails. As we wrote earlier in this space, the pull of both caucuses in Congress is toward the poles of policy, not toward a constructive center. Both parties find themselves intimidated by their “bases,” those partisans who show up to vote no matter what and who tolerate little short of hair-shirt orthodoxy.
“Centrism”has long been the the tag that corporatists like to affix to their morally inert brand of politics. “For sale” might be a better label. The only thing they stand in the center of is K-Street. Idealists on both ends of the political spectrum inspire voter loyalty, whereas Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln inspire lobbyists to write big checks in exchange for their votes.
Both conservatives and liberals may have different narratives to explain the moral flexibility of these “centrists,” but each understands the havoc that they wreck on our political system. When Alan Grayson, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders came together to say “enough” and demand the Federal Reserve be audited, sensible “centrists” Judd Gregg, Claire McCaskill and Kay Hagan rushed in to cover for the banks. Nobody needs Schoolhouse Rock to explain to them what that meant.
Republicans kicked Arlen Specter out of the party, and now Democrats are doing the same. If it were simply a matter of pleasing the “base,” as Frum says, then Specter’s more conservative nature should be more appealing to the general populace than Sestak’s. But that’s not the case. Sestak is outperforming Specter against Toomey.
As Jon Walker notes, the same is true in Arkansas, where Bill Halter outperforms Blanche Lincoln against Republican John Boozman. But it doesn’t appear to be simply a function of anti-incumbency. In Kentucky, the more liberal Jack Conway does better than so-called “centrist” Dan Mongiardo against likely GOP nominee Rand Paul in a November matchup.
The public has had a belly full of insider-ism and kowtowing to corporate interests. The “purge” is not something being carried out by extremists in each party against poor, reasonable centrists. These politicians are in fact the true radicals, who have been forcing the country onto its knees before oligarchical robber barons for their own personal profit. And their radicalism has been so extreme that it has brought right and left together to give them the bum’s rush.



76 Comments
electing the candidate with the best chance of winning is called strategic thinking
Trust.
Short, simple word. Complex concept.
Thanks, Jane.
David Frum is trying to pretend that the progressive left is as crazy as the teabagging right. As Krugman pointed out, that just isn’t true. The Party Democrats, both nationally and in most local and regional organizations are only better than Republicans by comparison. Stand them up alone without the big money defending GOP and the batsh*t crazy teabag Party and they are some loathsome and incredibly insular people. They have decided that they are the only ones with depth of knowledge and experience enough to make leadership decisions. The anointing of homophobe Brad Ellsworth in Indiana by the party leaders and the man he’s meant to replace is a wonderful example of this kind of thinking. Other wonderful examples include the Party embracing Lieberman in 2006 even after he ditched the Democrats when he lost his primary and the establishment support of both Specter and Lincoln over their much more progressive primary opponents. I don’t know the solution but public financing of campaigns and an absolute firewall between campaigns and elected officials would be a great start. Besides, we elected our lawmakers to work for us, not to campaign for the favored.
I saw Frum on a clip of one of Maher’s panels recently. Why in the world would anybody listen to this fool?
Speaking of purity, what’s the name of our marijuana initiative? Somehow that announcement got by me.
Dunno. Why do people listen to Beck? Why can’t we go one day without hearing from Drill Baby Spice? Why do people hang on every word from a guy who can’t get a plumbing license? It’s insane.
I don’t think it’s been made yet. If it has, I missed it too.
Me also!! What is the Winning NAME???
>>cough cough…
Yes, Lincoln and Specter must go. Their replacements, should they manage to fend off their rivals and their Republican opponents, are, unfortunately not as liberal as one would hope and they will only serve as a harbinger of change. It will be of interest to watch them interact with the Democratic power structure and to see if their desire to maintain their independence wins out over their desire to advance their careers within the corrupted party structure. Given the performance of the new Democratic congressmen over the last two years, I think you have to assume that the latter outcome is more likely. Then we will know once again that Lucy yanked the football out from under us. Any strike against the status quo must be viewed in a positive light, however.
Small victories. If the progressives can put fear into the establishment Democrats, I’ll take it.
the true radicals, who have been forcing the country onto its knees before oligarchical robber barons for their own personal profit.
beautifully put and worth repeating.
dangit, i want this on a bumpersticker!
““Centrism”has long been the the tag that corporatists like to affix to their morally inert brand of politics. “For sale” might be a better label. The only thing they stand in the center of is K-Street.”
*
Beautiful.
Frum proves once again that most of the corporate appeasing middle, whether D or R, has absolutely no clue. The “bases” are made up of people that have expectations of those they vote for that of late are not being met by most of those in office. A lot is being made of the Tea Party folks but they aren’t the majority of the disaffected, simply the most vocal. What people like Frum want from public officials is access. So long as they get it, the actual issues won or lost are secondary. What most Americans want, Tea Partiers included, is for politicians to stop working for the bankers and corporations and go back to working for what is best for people who need to work to survive. The constant posturing on issues which in turn leads to legislation that often does nothing but fulfill the goals of lobbyists has gone on for altogether too long. The uncommitted center is where the money is and where those that stand for nothing turn their offices into cash machines.
Rendell got on MSNBC last week and said sheepishly that the reason Sestak is winning is because he is using the great ad team that helped Rendell get elected.
Yeah, that’s it, Ed.
Right now Matthews says he can’t get over the fact that “Sestak has one of the best ads in history” and he’s played it a few times over already. He buys Fast Eddy hype sooooooo easily.
A GREAT example of that is how much better Sestak is running against Toomey than Specter is. Party Dems are going to vote for Specter if he wins the primary, Sestak represents something other than “more of the same”.
I’ve been looking for it too. :-)
Even if they are not as liberal/progressive as we would hope, the very possibility that they might possess actual principles, rates them as better choices than the morally hollow incumbents who are about to be evicted.
right on the money jane
the media and the republicans call “center” is far far right from what the real center is when you ask people what they really stand for
ecahn said it best when commenting about herself, I am paraphrasing;
“something has changed in perspective when a former wall street analyst agrees with the liberals most of the time”
they aren’t nearly the most vocal either, they are the most represented by corporate media so they seem most vocal
Certainly Mr. “I switched parties so I could win re-election” rates as one of those hollow incumbents…
I know I’m terminally skeptical, but even though I hope Sestak and Halter and other incumbent challengers win, I fully expect them to undergo an instant conversion to the party orthodoxy, and thus cave on all issues on which they campaigned.
These days the so-called “center” is a laughable (it wasn’t so periously and painfully ruining the country and our citizens) construct put out there as cover for what’s really going on, which is the corporate control of our nation, our taxpayer dollars, our way of life, etc. There is absolutely nothing “center” about it; it’s a made up term that the Madison Ave gang have told their bros on Wall Street to use as a cover for their criminal rip off.
That said, I would also argue that the only reason why the Tea Party *appears* more “vocal” than similarly angry and disaffected lefties is bc they have corporate sponsorship – from the Kochs for one – and rightwing thinktank organizing, plus a lot of free media, esp from Fake “Nooz,” but also CNN and all the rest.
I have no idea if the Koch Family Industries intended for the Tea Party to have some of the sway that they have, or not. That remains unclear.
Lefties have been staging rallies and protests, at least for the past 9 or 10 months or so, but we rarely see anything about them, and they’re not even discussed that much here.
The fact, though, that the media *grudgingly* admits to the push from the left shows that there is impact from the left, no matter how much the media strives to avoid ANY mention of us effen retarded dfh’s.
Sadly, have to agree. After the dismalness of BHO – about whom I was skeptical when I voted for him, but gad, never expected him to be THIS horrid – I no longer have any expectations. Anything “good” that happens will be a pleasant, unexpected surprise (if anything).
Small correction: Halter and Sestak are the non incumbents but you’re absolutely right. As soon as those lobbyist checkbooks come out, they’ll find that their erstwhile opponents had much more in common with them than they thought.
We’re announcing Wednesday. We didn’t want it to get lost in a bunch of election/BP coverage.
Don’t worry, it’s coming…and it’s great.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
This is, of course, a fine post stating the obvious. What we have playin out here is the end of industrial capitalism and the oiligarchy driven by the laws of political physics. I have been sayin’ for months now that the classic triangulation of the real center will ultimately leave only a party of newly enfranchised money (thank you SCOTUS) and a party that represents the majority of people of the country. I have also been sayin that the Democrats are only gunna lose Blue Dogs and Clintonistas while the lunatic right will gain only a few corporate Republicans who will not be enough to seat majorities in either house of congress. Since the banksters and the oil ogopoloy are runnin’ out of worthless cash, the Citizens United ruling will be a hollow victory because there won’t be enough money left to elect a Republican dogcatcher in 2012. Look for General Petraeus to be the candidate of the old oligarchy and unless there is a coup (possible) the real political fight is gunna be between the progressive blocks in both houses against the Obama Administration. Look for Rahm to be cast overboard after November and Obama will be paddlin’ his leaky canoe with his bare hands and a smile.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, AND REMEMBER THERE IS NO COMPROMISING WITH FASCISTS!!
I thought you were leaving us?
Yes, they probably will. And in the mean time it kept Lincoln and Specter from being worse than they otherwise would have been. So there is some value to those who aren’t here simply to depress anyone else from taking action.
Don’t feel like you have to stick around or we’ll feel bad. We don’t want to bum you out and keep you from finding a place where you’ll feel more fulfilled.
Thank yew. No wonder I couldn’t find a thread after the voting closed.
Fuckin’ A.
Citizen SouthernDragon:
Peace Brother.
His challenge sure made Specter start at least pretending to be a Democrat. When he first switched parties, wasn’t he out boasting that none of his positions were going to change? I’d love for Sestak to win this race because we KNOW Specter will go right back to being his old right wing self should he win and retain his seat.
Peace Brother.
Moderates is the medias favorite term for anyone who works for the Corp. elite. If u don’t your a radical and to be either ignored or attacked.
I keep thinking of new ones:
Legalize Cannabis – End the Thuggery
Cannabis – Woman’s Medical Herb
Maybe President Obama could host another summit of all the world leaders and twist everyone’s arm such that every country decriminalizes all at once. No more confused patchwork of laws resulting in ruined lives. Just one swell foop.
Of course the reason the MSM folks put all races in this light is because it is how they drum up advertising business for their TV appearances. If the purveyors of the horserace came on and said that advertising was useless and that voters were only interested in issues, they would be looking for new employment fairly quickly. Their bias tints their view and should make most of the information they present suspect.
“I wish I knew how to quit you” Heh!
Very true. The real problem seems to be getting the people on the same page in order to stand up to it effectively. The two parties are doing their best to ensure that real leaders are either sucked in (nullified) or kept out (nullified).
“Idealists on both ends of the political spectrum inspire voter loyalty, whereas Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln inspire lobbyists to write big checks in exchange for their votes.”
Um, scratching head, trying to recall a time when we thought of bribery of public officials as bribery of public officials.
Great article and oh, so true. All too often “Centrist” means For Sale. It doesn’t mean that you take a middle of the road stance on an issue, or that you swing back and forth on issues, or that you are a concensus builder. That’s the big Obama thing…..he likes to bring people together. Now lookit, nobody could bring the GOP to a sane position, they are the scourge of the earth….but that’s neither here nor there with Obama….that’s not what he really seems to be about anyways. He is not a Centrist, he’s For Sale. Oh, he’s smart, slick and good lookin while For Sale, but For Sale nonetheless. He could have said to the GOP…OK, you want to have a “free market” on healthcare…fine have it, set it up however you want. I’m setting up a Medicare for all system. The folks who don’t like your “free market” option, or who are going to die, or go broke in your “free market” system can come on over to my Medicare for all. Then we’d see which system the people really need/want and like. Maybe it would be “free market”??? Or maybe it would be Medicare for all. Interesting to see what all those old, white, teabaggers would choose, eh? But NO, he choose to be a Centrist, and sell the American People down the river for a “bi-partisan” bill….which nobody likes and is an albatross around the Dems necks. Oh, except for the Ins Co’s. They like it alot. By law, tens of millions of people under threat of huge financial penalties will be forced to purchase their shitty policies for whatever price they decide to sell them to us for.
Centrist = For Sale
Wiping coffee off monitor.
What is really going on here is a battle between autocracy and democracy.
The elites have this sense that those in power have a right to remain in power because they are the political elites who have the authority to rule. Elections do occur, but the loyal party members are supposed to vote for them because they are the proper leaders and followers are supposed to submit to them. If the voters instead decide to not vote for these people then it must be explained by some dysfunctional zeitgeist making the voters crazy. Either they have been infected with the “throw them all out” disease or they have the “purge” disease. Both these diseases are irrational conditions that keep the voters from acting rationally and continuing to do the appropriate thing of submitting to their natural leaders.
Actually it’s just democracy working. But try to explain that in the Versailles Village’s bubble. Oh well.
“Complete the danged fence!”
We elect our lawmakers to decide for us, and maybe that’s the problem.
How is a demand-side prohibition against bribing going to be more effective than the similar prohibition we’ve spent 40-years failing at with drugs?
We all know it’s about harm-reduction, so the trick here should be to keep these people out of the capacity to do so much harm.
I think you’re referring to Inquisitr who cancelled his e-mail sub and vowed to read but not post.
Do I make you nervous?
What’s so crazy about that? We obviously implicitly consider it to be true, else we’d stop wasting so much damn money on marketing campaigns, no?
You can’t have it both ways.
No, I think your perspective is toxic, you depress people and make them withdraw from participation. You infect others with your nihilism.
Unless you have a positive alternative to offer, which I haven’t seen, your general wet-blanket-ism is probably more appropriate for other sites.
Like my threads…oh well
So a perspective that working with Dems who’ve sold us out repeatedly in the past and that we need to explore other options is toxic?
So far, what I see is that you continue to offer hope, which is fine. My question has always been, what happens if the hope doesn’t pan out? What’s Plan B. The answer I seem to get is that Plan A is the only way to go.
I think the HCR debacle was a real revelation. If DK or Grayson or one senator had held out against Obama, I’d say there was room for hope. But none of them did. Not a one. If darlings of the progressive movement, with mountains of support from FDL, secure home states and districts, and backing from other true liberal/progressive sites and orgs cave in, what is the rational basis for expecting newcomers to Congress not to get crushed?
I realize the place you’re in; you’ve invested a decade or so inside the progressive establishment and the Dem party. Now you either have to stay with them and hope for the best, or take inordinate risks in opposition. Might well do the same in your position as you’re doing. But if you were to rank progressive victories by hard objective criteria: did we get want we wanted? What we were promised in campaigns? Did we get the kind of wins that the GOPers have in the past? I posit that the answer is no.
I also object to the wet-blanketism characterization. I’ve been for lots of things in a positive way, just not calling losses victories, as with the faux Audit the Fed bill.
And FWIW, Inquisitr announced he was quitting and I tried to talk him into staying. So for this I’m accused of making people withdraw from participation?
There’s no such thing as a fixed political center. No one can define this mythical “center”. As you say, the “center” is K-Street.
One of your best, Jane. Carry on!
With all due respect. This is kind of funny when you think about it.
It could just as easily have been literally any Democratic Party Org addressing you directly with your constant agitating, no? The entire schtick about the Veal Pen would fit squarely within the mold you’ve just placed BigJess in.
Since you’ve also often directed this criticism directly at me, I was hoping you could finally elucidate how taking the framework of FDL, and it’s national exposure, to bring a constant medium for organization and news around more localized issues isn’t positive? How creating california.firedoglake.com with California issues front and center for California readers to get directly involved in, and bringing to bear the http://www.firedoglake.com spotlight on them from time to time to pool national resources for local needs, isn’t positive? How taking the obvious angst and latent enthusiasm seeking leadership, along with the obvious expertise of significant portions of the readership and contributors, and establishing a forum for drafting initiative language and organizing resources to push them onto ballots, fostering the direct empowerment of democracy in the turest form, isn’t positive?
Are they less positive than soliciting money from people to funnel into observably gamed and broken vectors of activism that ultimately result in materially enriching some of the very interests that actively work on their own time to subvert our prerogatives?
These suggestions don’t fit in the rubric of D.C. power politics, but I’m still at a loss for how we’re supposed to win that game. Not only does the opposition have the table tilted in their favor, but they also write the rules. No? Is that not what is discovered, reported, and revealed ad nauseam right here at FDL? We’re somehow supposed to outplay them?
Will there be an illuminating logical argument forthcoming, or should I expect the outcome here to again be some veiled form of, “Tell you what, you go get your own FDL, and then come talk to me.” ?
dottyoliver’s diary is upstairs!
The Mistress of the Misunderstood and the Sea Captain: Day 6 & 7
Thanks Jane
Love the visuals that your contrasting comparisons or right, left and the corporate ‘radicals’ provided.
I believe that progressives today are just slightly left of center, some of the right wingers slightly right of center and the rest of em are clean off the page.
3.The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
Well hell, I don’t see another option…. DAMN YOU BIGJESS!
Wow.
I am really offended by people telling Jane who she is (especially when that’s not who she is), what she has been doing for a decade (when that’s not what she has been doing), and what *exactly* she should be doing with the organization/website that she has built (ahem, it’s hers to do with as she pleases) because (apparently) she’s supposed to do what she’s told (oh, really?) to do.
And, arguing with her about it for days on end? With smart-ass trash talk to boot?
*shakes head*
What Jane is doing and how she has constructed it step by step and the choices she has made, make complete sense to me. And it’s really hard for me to figure out what possible grounds there are for arguing with her at length.
You must not have been privy to the articles where Jane and other primary authors were outwardly hostile, through articles on this site, where they called swaths of their content and monetary contributors hucksters and Naderites for doing precisely that which Jane and FDL were guilty of doing themselves? She even ran a faux-fundraiser for single-payer support after having spent weeks shitting on the people who didn’t buy into the Public Option, and when it wasn’t a raging success on no-notice, and standing in utter isolation from any other effort, she was again hostile and dismissive of said supporters within the very comments section of the fundraiser call to action. It was kind of funny really. I don’t regret giving money to it, or on behalf of others who couldn’t afford to contribute, but by the end of the event it seemed like the whole thing was just a “purity test.”
If it makes complete sense to you, perhaps you can explain it to me. The most recent example is a good one. The sidebar of the site has a call for donations to run a very, very good ad. It calls for money to run that ad in the D.C. market. Which group of people in the D.C. market is that ad supposed to affect? The politicians? The lobbyists? Where do the Dollars spent to run the ad ultimately end up, and what do those interests do with that money? Do they use it to cover progressive causes? Liberal protests? Do they use it to lobby Congress for progressive changes?
I already offered to give $100 to the effort if anyone could make more sense out of it for me than being an emotionally satisfying, and appropriate, dig at the idiocy of the President. The problem I already know the President is a duplicitous ass, and I have a hard time believing anyone who is actually persuadable to that prerogative really still exists in D.C. who doesn’t already share the same opinion based on everything else we’ve seen from him so far.
Shaking my head with you.
You’ve certainly invested a great deal of time questioning Jane’s strategic choices.
If you have something constructive to add, please do so.
That “great deal of time” you mentioned includes my attempts to add something constructive.
I’m left to assume that my questions are so absurd and so irrational as to not warrant any substantive response?
Can you explain to me how we’re supposed to outplay the powers at power politics? How we’re supposed to win an advertising arms race?
Perhaps we should just get more people in Congress to sign pledges and give them money? When someone constantly asks me for money to invest in something I ask a lot of questions about their plan and strategy, and when the business is an abject failure, and they come asking for more money to do the same thing, I ask more questions. I don’t see why political activism should be any different. Our time and money are finite resources, and they’re our glaring weakness compared to our competition. Why does it make sense to endlessly pursue a strategy that plays to our weaknesses, especially when it feeds the competition’s strengths?
I’ll ask you the same questions I asked of Jane and of reader. If you have a substantive argument to make, please do so. It’d save everybody a lot of time, and get you guys a lot more support for the current strategy, because while I may be the most vocal it doesn’t typically appear that I’m alone.
Or is this one of those situations like where Jane says, “you don’t offer any other ideas.” Except that I explicitly did, and do?
It’s possible I have stupid ideas, worse ideas, bad ideas, or just plain ideas that don’t appeal to Jane. That’s perfectly fine by me. I happen to know that she thinks, or at least thought, that one of them was a good one. That’s really not at all germane, though it is constructive. Whether or not I, nor anyone else, has any other ideas has very little to do with whether or not its worth assessing the ideas that are already in place an in action.
For what it’s worth, I’d spend a whole lot less time at it if ever once there was a logically sound answer to the questioning. Instead of the usual rebuttal of ad hominems, non-sequiturs, and red herrings.
Every single position I hold is simply the result of the most complete and most logical argument I’ve been presented with, or been able to construct. This is no different.
Jane, nor anyone else is under any obligation to answer my questions, but I don’t understand why there’s any impetus to respond at all without doing so in the process.
Of course, as with the last dozen parts in this mini-series. I full expect this one will end the same way. Where the topic rolls off the page, a few people will have piled on to admonish myself and others, and will in the process of doing so… still not bothered to functionally address the questions or critiques.
“Why aren’t we getting anywhere?! Why hasn’t this ship arrived yet?! Why isn’t this ship moving faster toward my goals?!”
Maybe you’re just walking, or at least looking, backwards on a forward-moving vessel. We’re working out, right here and now, the answers to your questions. Pardon us if we actually go through the process, not just the ticket-punching motions, of being what our time demands of us.
Which questions? How so? Be specific.
Because this looks a lot like one of those responses which contains no argument, but asserts that I’m somehow misguided, impatient, or impudent.
Thanks.
Hooray! My predictive abilities prove vindicated!!! /rollseyes
“How creating california.firedoglake.com with California issues front and center for California readers to get directly involved in, and bringing to bear the http://www.firedoglake.com spotlight on them from time to time to pool national resources for local needs, isn’t positive?”
Absolutely all for it. The riots will start here and it would be great if FDL were to be ahead of the ball for once.
Elect the “un-electables”, because a political class is poison to democracy. Supporting career politicians is a fool’s errand and ‘pragmatism’ implies adopting the elite’s frames, which is not likely to advance the public cause.
Perhaps you weren’t paying sufficiently close attention to BigJess’s specific positions. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him say clearly that supporting progressives in primaries was a good idea and that he was doing so in his own district.
He certainly shouldn’t stick around if he doesn’t wish to, but I’d would feel that this place had lost something of value if he left.
That goes doubly for Nathan, by the way (I know you didn’t mention him, but others have). During my brief acquaintance here the analytical quality of some of his posts has impressed me perhaps more than any others have.
FWIW.
heh
Thank you, and yes, you would be correct, I am supporting Marcy Winograd in her primary against Jane Harman.
Speaking of which, has anybody seen the Blue American Marcy Winograd ads up against Harman, and Harman’s response ad?
Winograd ad is devastating, brutal, on-target. Beats Harman like a stepchild.
Harman, by contrast, appears not to have anything really to say except that she ought to be re-elected. One of the worst, least effective ads I can ever remember.
knowbuddhau? RBG? reader? Jane?
Meh. It’s alright.
I imagine it would be hard to type a substantive response, what with both hands occupied with the clutching of pearls.
Nathan,
I’m with you in part. It is hard to be anti-establishment– some of the time. I too think that ‘this sucks’ is my most frequent emotion. And it happens more often when reading this site.
But I know it’s not too constructive. Saying OBummer is true, but we have to get over it and make some changes.
I have concluded that this site is going to work for change within the Democratic party.
I feel that watching Obama say “I love Arlen Specter” on my TV makes me never want to vote for Obama. But if you want third party. This is not the site. I think Jane may be suggesting that to Jess. Speculation.
I took a lot of time off from this site in the last year. Used to read every post in 05 and 06. When Democratic majorities failed to meaningfully alter the course of the wars and the funding… I tuned out.
Like many others… what to do?
Fight within the party, or go outside?
And I’m asking Jane, what is the new strategy to accomplish change within the Dem party? So far, all the things we’ve tried have been abject failures. So, what’s the new plan. As I said before, I keep coming back to Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think expecting elected Dems to suddenly grow a spinal column or suddenly start actually believing in progressive principles is, well, hard to support given the evidence to date.
Fuck trust. No Incumbency for Frauds.
Unless you prefer the Yglesiases of the world dripping ink about “public opinion pressure”. There is only one meaningful signal voters can send to representatives, and it is career-ending.
Wow. Late to the thread, but pretty dismayed at what I’ve now read in the comments.
Has FDL, the absolute cream of online sources for progressive, humanistic , thoughtful interactions with smart people committed to ideals of rationality and social justice, suddenly been magically transformed into a mindless game of Follow the Leader? Say it ain’t so!!!
Jnae is and has been a remarkable and inspirational leader and thinker, and I’d fight anyone who says different. But that does not mean her strategies must be accepted unquestioningly. It is just possible that some of the other smart people who come here might actually have some good ideas of their own to share. I believe in the markerplace of ideas concept. Who here does not? Stand and be recognized if you don’t.
Nobody can rationally attack those who criticize and offer different ideas here unlesss they can honestly say that the success record of the
FDL strategies to date has been overwhelming and unbroken. Can anyone say that? The truth is that the victories have been small ones, worth cherishing because they are victories, worth celebrating Jane for achieving them, but victories of a size that might well require a thousand years to bring about “regime change.” That’s just reality. It doesn’t make Jane one whit less heroic, not at all, but it does leave A LOT OF ROOM for other thinkers to offer up other ideas for discussion and consideration. Such offers are made with the hope of getting constructive feedback and perhaps even suggestions for improvement, but always with the goal of moving the whole society to a better place. So it is hard to put a nice gloss on the hostility reflected in many of the comment above, particularly, and it hurts me to have to make this specific citation, in Jane’s Comments at #27 and following.
Shall we purify this site as the Rethugs are purifying their Shrinking Tent? God, I hope that’s not what we are about. I’d like to think we are so much better than that. But there is something very ugly in the message that, suddenly, there is one owner here and what she says goes, just because. Especially when the people who are the targets of that message (am I one, I wonder?) have been puting their time and emotional commitment into this place in the (mistaken?) belief that we were INVITEES to participate as equals in a community. Are we now to believe that we were never meant to be anything more than “website clicks,” or are we indeed welcome members of the community even though we occasionally have the temerity, or the CREATIVITY and VISION, to think outside of the box?
I know it’s late, but I’d really like some clarification about this.
Best of luck.
I didn’t get a chance to answer a previous question of yours, so I’m hoping you see it here. You asked why I though that a decentralized focus on local politics, and specifically popular initiatives and proposals, made more sense to me than pursuing a top-down strategy hinging on the success of 3rd-party candidates.
The reasons are as follows:
- I have little reason to believe that enough 3rd-party candidates can take hold to do anything other than obstruct, at best. That’s not to say that obstruction isn’t a very, very important role, but it will be invariably fleeting as the parliamentary tricks we’ve long wished would be used to our favor will fast be used to our chagrin.
- The arrangement of our electoral system fundamentally cements an incumbency party, and so 3rd-party success will be fleeting, and most probably unsustainable. That’s not to say that important things can’t be done in those periods that are hard to reverse later, but if we’re going to put in the effort…
- A focus on popular initiatives puts people back in touch with their government directly, and energizes them to focus on on issue, not a personality. Expanding that framework is a necessary means to make sure that populism is a constant and prolific force in our government, rather than a temporary counter-balance that comes in wake of plutocratic crisis.
- I also fundamentally disagree that elections are suitable leverage, or points of accountability, and as such there remains really no useful means to get a representative to do the things they claimed they would until it’s already too late, and all we have is our hope that the next person won’t be as duplicitous. This is observably a very long, probably eternal, wait.
There are others. The crux of it is that there are significant and numerous failings inherent in representative democracy, and fundamentally advancing direct democracy where possible will invariably produce more democratic outcomes.
All your points and concerns are credible to me. I guess the essence of my skepticism about your solution is simply this: there are TOO MANY issues where things are totally FUBAR, and you can only offer a few referendum initiatives at a time without overloading the consciousness of the electorate. So, while I sympathize with your intent, I think the necessarily piecemeal implementation would be very problematic.
Of course, the third party solution has its own difficulties, as you correctly note, and I am aware of them and do not downplay them. I guess, in the final analysis, I believe there are moments in any process where key factors are properly aligned to allow for a major turnng of the tide that needs only a trigger. I see this in markets all the time, and am very good at recognizing those moments. Markets are just about people’s opinions, so there is a strong analogy to the political realm, I feel. I think we have such a moment now in the political realm, and I think if people had a new and rational choice presented to them right now, they would embrace it in such numbers and with such enthusiasm that the procedural obstacles could be swept away with much greater ease than conventional wisdom would normally anticipate. Of course, I can’t prove this, but I believe it. I have dedicated my life to developing the ability to recognize such moments, though, and I’ve learned to trust my judgments about them. Convincing others to trust those judgments is always more difficult, but understandable.
I agree with this, and agree that we’re quite obviously sitting atop one of those moments. People were duped into thinking the election of Barack Obama would be that trigger of which you speak, and thus here we are trying to figure out how to keep the moment from being squandered in its entirety.
The value and rarity of such circumstances isn’t lost on me. As such, if I had to pick between leveraging that moment to get something like a National Initiative system, or to successfully elect some 3rd party candidates, I favor the initiative system, precisely because it distinctly reduces our need to be waiting around for these moments to do anything useful. It also only has to happen once, whereas 3rd parties will need to be built from whole cloth through the same arduous and difficult process every time such a moment presents itself.
My inclinations on working with States which have such systems already are two fold. First, it allows us to set achievable goals (I think it’s entirely within the capacity for FDL to organize marijuana legalization, LGBT marriage rights, etc.), which in turn creates momentum, and the entirety of the system isn’t rigged against such things. Second, I don’t think FDL fundamentally has the resources to take on huge national problems, because it’s never going to be able to raise and spend more money to corrupt a politician to our favor than the existing monied interests, and popular pressure has been rightfully shown as almost entirely impotent. There just aren’t any useful tools to work with toward major reforms, so it’s just one resounding defeat after another.
To me it’s the fundamental difference between systemically reconfiguring our government to work for us, and marginally altering the parameters of the existing broken system to produce temporarily better outcomes.