Tweet
Say what you will about the Tea Parties, the conservative grassroots, the Republican base, the right wing anti-establishment or whatever you would call them; they have done a very good job of trying to take control of their party from the Republican establishment and reshaping the GOP in their own image. So far this cycle, insurgent hardcore conservative candidates have defeated or forced out of the party more moderate establishment-backed Republicans candidates in nine important Senate races: Connecticut, Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Alaska, Nevada, Delaware.
In addition, insurgent conservative primary challengers have managed to defeat the establishment choice in several important Gubernatorial races, such as New York and Florida, and win several House primaries.
It is true that the conservative base did lose several races and hasn’t succeeded in fully purging their party this cycle, an impossible task given the inherent power of the establishment and the difficulty of recruiting enough candidates. The important point, though, is not just the number of races they won but that they have made themselves a true force in the party. They have placed the Republican establishment on notice, forced their officials to listen to their demands, and, most importantly, made elected Republicans fear them. Fear of losing one’s seat is often the driving force for politicians. They have done more to take control of their party from the establishment than either party’s base has accomplished in years, if not decades.
The Republican activist base has made it very clear that moderates are no longer welcome in the party, and will be targeted for removal at the first opportunity. I don’t doubt that the few remaining GOP moderates, like Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), have gotten the message: shape up or be shipped out. The Tea types have sent a message: it is their party now.
While I like almost nothing about their ideology, as an activist, I can’t help but respect their success at advancing their positions and defeating a deeply entrenched establishment. Maybe progressives should look to learn some lessons from them about taking control of a major political party. Right now, it is clear that the GOP fears their base, while the Democratic establishment proudly discounts and dismisses their own.
72 Comments
I agree in theory but not in practice. Firstly, T-partiers have been funded from the beginning by the Kochs and others; they’ve had Fox provide them with their talking points, tell them when & where their rallies are being held, and provide tons of coverage of their rallies. Their candidates have done some leg-work, to be sure, but they’ve also enjoyed funding, backing and other support from rich benefactors.
Yes, T-party voters have kept up the momentum, but with paid infotainers like Beck & Palin to keep them whipped up into a tent-show frenzy.
What do progressives have but ourselves? That’s it. Say what you will about MSNBC and/or George Soros, ain’t no one paying for progressives to run, including loads of advertising. There’s a world of difference between the T-Party & progressives, and that can be summed up in one word: MONEY. T-party’s got it; we don’t.
Plus the T-Party goals still pretty closely align with GOP goals, and certainly align with corporatist goals. So the rightwing may raise a stink, but the PTB will absorb any T-party “winners,” pay them off, and make sure that they “toe the line.”
Of course, Dems will also do their best to buy off and control anyone who wins who happens to be truly progressive.
As Shark-fu, the Angry Black Bitch, noted yesterday, not all Tea Parties are the same. After looking at O’Donnell and the TP folks in Delaware, she compares them with Missouri, where former GOP house minority whip Roy Blunt beat Tea Party candidate State Senator Chuck Purgason for the GOP nod to face Robin Carnahan in the battle to replace Kit Bond:
I don’t think Blunt fears his base — I think they fear him (or rather, what he says will happen if he loses), and that’s the difference.
The T Party had millions of dollars of assistance from Dick Armey and Astroturf groups. Also the compliance and cheerleading support from the Media and built-in support for their R Styled policy positions (anti-abortion, anti-big government, anti-tax, anti-gay, pro military, pro-religion). The Republican Party always believed that it would retain the reins of power and rein them in when necessary. That’s where it blew up.
While I like almost nothing about their ideology, as an activist, I can’t help but respect their success at advancing their positions and defeating a deeply entrenched establishment. Maybe progressives should look to learn some lessons from them about taking control of a major political party.
I think that we should also stay away from the “moderation vs. extremism” idea too. DLCers have been calling progressive Democrats extremists constantly during the last 22+ years.
Being in the middle doesn’t prove anything. We can call the teabaggers misinformed fanatics, mean-minded bigots, and all sorts of other things, but if you just call them extremists we’re cutting our own throats.
The most important thing to remember about politicians is that they are motivated by fear, not friendship. Fear of losing big campaign donations — or worse, having them go to a rival — is the biggest fear. That’s why public opinion and doing the right thing don’t seem to count. The situation now is that at least some of the big corporate money is on the side of the Tea Partyers, and that is real fear.
Citizen Jon Walker:
“…I can’t help but respect their success.”
I look forward to your information and analysis and most of the time I agree with you but your “respect” is as misplaced as a pile of shit in the punch bowl. There is nuthin to respect about a well organized and corporately financed, pseudo grass roots political movement which represents the real idiology of the corporate fascists who have been runnin this country for 60 years. They have used thuggery, intimidation and calls for violence to gain control of their very small party and have used the corporate media and well meaning “liberals” to gain legitimacy and “repsect” for their Potemkin army. No Brother Walker, there is absolutely nuthin to “respect’ about this fascist movement that now has the mantle of a mainstream party.
Ahh, let me see if I’ve got this right.
THe Republican base got tired of the party dissing them, and by not supporting the establishment candidates have moved the party further to their liking (further right) and even those establishment republican politicians left now fear their base and will, in theory, act accordingly.
But those of us that want to do the same thing to the Democratic Party are pajama wearing, cheetos eating, drug adled “fucking retards”.
Got it.
I do wonder though, and perhaps some of the stay the course D’s can answer this for me, how long do we have to wait after the Dems keep mostly getting our support and yet mostly continue to pass corporatist rather than progressive legislation before you would agree this isn’t working??
5 years?? 10 years?? 50 Years?? Come on, answer that please, because I’m confused by the “we’ve gotta keep supporting them and making them better” meme. How long until you’ll agree it’s not working????
You are no doubt correct that much of the short term success is due to the backstage financial backing and very up front promotional backing of FOX and right wing talk radio.
It remains to be seen if th TBaggers can win a general election or more importantly, a second general election. Are they a flash in the pan or a sustainable movement? Are the results of a throw the bums out, anti-incumbant election really predictive of a sustainable long term trend?
It is unlikely that the stalwarts of the republican party will embrace the tea party over the long haul.
More importantly, the plight of the middle class and blue collar workers is not going to improve under the policies advocated by the tea party, main stream republicans or most importantly the impending gridlock in Washington. What is likely is that all incumbants will continue to be seen as the root of the problems.
“The Republican Party always believed that it would retain the reins of power and rein them in when necessary.”
And they will probably do just that over the long haul, especially if the likes of Angle and O’Donnell lose.
Citizen Seeker:
The German aristocracy and industrial bosses thought that they could reign in the little fascist paper-hanger too…12 years later they were hidin in the rubble waitin for a handout and a low intrest loan from America.
I don’t think I’ve read a better summary of the tea party movement and it’s successes anywhere than in this one paragraph.
Spot on.
Great post Jon.
Your last paragraph says it all.
Dems in general (not all), like to talk about the ‘crazies’ on the far-right while lamenting their own plight of betrayal. The far-right, as crazy as they may be, have been smart enough to realize that fear of losing power is the only thing politicians understand.
If the many Dem supporters intent on doubling down on the lesser-evilist straw man would shift tactics, maybe the left could see similar results.
The amount spent even with corporate backing in places like Utah, Alaska, and Delaware was very small. Smaller than that amount liberal/progressive/labor spent on Halter.
The Tea Party Ascendancy is one act in a long play. It’s possible to see the TP as the instrument of the Old Guard, in that it was organized and funded by the oldest of the old guard, to wit, the Koch brothers, Armey, et al. The TP will either serve the Old Guard’s purposes or it will disappear. Nothing like juicing up the base and then throwing them out with the rest of the garbage. (It’s been done with considerable success before)
Some of these TP candidates will win in November most likely. Hard to believe that the Rethugs could actually become MORE conservative, MORE obstructionist, MORE manipulative and authoritarian, They want to rein in the role of big government on business, health care, taxation, but they want to support government intervention via warrantless spying, internet surveillance, arrest without probable cause, “enhanced” interrogations, military tribunals, HUGE and growing militarization, and greater government control over women’s health, to name a few items. The TP people do not realize that they are currently the pawns of Koch, Murdoch, and others who have invested in them. They do not invest without a profit motive. The current TP masses do not realize how they are being punked. They do not realize that they may be substituting the heavy hand of government for the heavy, greedy, selfish, unaccountable hand of Big Business. You can vote out a senator, but a CEO is not elected by the people. Scary.
Citizen OldFatGuy:
And this fascist “movement” deserves no “respect” whatsoever…the only cure for a wounded democracy is more democracy,not a third, fourth or fifth party but takin’ control of the party that represents the mass of people and kickin’ some ass at the polls. And it can’t be done by stayin’ home and whinnin about Obama and the DLC!
As well as the billions of dollars in cash and free advertising the TPers get, remember that it’s also a lot easier to wrest control from a party establishment when that party establishment has been Heismaned in two straight election cycles.
Citizen Jon Walker:
That doesn’t address my point Citizen Walker…this movement doesn’t deserve ANYone’s “respect”. This is American fascism comin out of the closet and bein’ “respected” and legitimized by would be progressives.
Well, I won’t be stayin’ home and whinnin about Obama and DLC, but I would like very much to take control of the party that represents the mass of people.
If we disagree on how to go about getting that control, so be it. I still like and respect you very much and miss your contributions here. You have a unique way of cutting through the bullshit and getting down to where to rubber meets the road.
I like that. And I suspect on the issues we’re likely almost 100% in agreement. So I hope you won’t hold it against me too much if IMO the way to regain control of that party is different from the way you see it.
One major difference, though, is that the goals of the teabaggers are opposed by a majority of Americans, while the goals of liberal/progessives are favored by a majority of Americans. So, while one party’s been taken over by folks who will run it far to the right, and into a ditch of majority disapproval, the other party, um — has been taken over by folks who will run it far to the right, and into a ditch of majority disapproval.
Now the goals and objectives of both actual parties, and their actual nominees once in office, are opposed by a majority of Americans.
Citizen OldFatGuy:
We are way past arguin’ about tactics and strategy and how many fascists can dance on the head of a pin. If we don’t get out to vote for the party we want to represent the mass of people, we will be arguin’ about how to gain control of the party of the people from inside a re-education camp.
We need to find candidates that will act on our values. And we need a funding mechanism to support them.
Halter is a case that deserves some more study. We did find a coalition to back his candidacy. And fought a good if ultimately losing fight.
Changing the game for progressives means doing what we did in the Arkansas Democratic primary 10 times over (or more), and winning 3 or 4 races while making the others competitive.
We aren’t there yet.
Until we are there it is worth considering what the alternatives are in the general election. My personal preference is that Nancy Pelosi remain speaker of a House with markedly fewer Blue Dogs. Those newly republican seats (as opposed to DINO seats) would be a natural place for our game changing primary targets in 2012.
Keeping a slim Democratic majority in the next Congress means it wouldn’t be wasting resources investigating whether Sestak was offered anything to not run against Spector, and all the other circuses that have been promised.
Citizen wmd1961:
Ah, how wonderful it is to hear a voice of reason! Thank you, citizen, I have been worried for the last 6-7 months that most of the folks around here had their heads so far up their asses that all they could see was their tonsils.
Doesn’t this make the point that the right time to shape a party is when it’s out of power? While Progressives spent 8 years shouting against and mocking the Republicans in power, Rahm did a great job of moving the Democratic Party. Progressives should have to work more on shaping the Democratic Party after it loses Congress and less on bitching about the Republicans’ nonsense.
Then I guess you’re going to have to explain how supporting the current party with it’s current incumbents is going to result in that same party with mostly those same incumbents somehow acting different. Because since 2006, this Democratic Party most definitely has NOT represented the mass of people and instead represented the corporations much like the other fascist party.
I’m of the belief that doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is.. well, you know. I’m of the belief that we need different incumbants in this party because these incumbents have no interest in respresenting anyone other than the corps. And I’m of the belief that if a party runs a campaign promising major change and delivering more of the same turn to the right, then that party should face consequences. Accountability. Otherwise that party will do it again. And again. And again. After all, if I didn’t face consequences, I’d go out and rob a bank right now. I could use the money.
If you are of different beliefs, then so be it. I can respect that.
I do notice how you didn’t answer my question.
How long do the Democrats acting like Republicans will it take for you to agree supporting that behaviour is not in our best message? Is it 5 years? 10? 20? 50?
Please recall, though, how badly any challenge to an incumbent Democratic Senator was treated by Legacy Media during the 2000-2006 period. Rape Gurney Joe was handled with kid gloves, even after he was defeated in his party’s primary in Connecticut, and allowed to run as an independent, something you only see Lisa in Alaska flirting with (and I doubt she’ll do).
Don’t underestimate the capability of the Legacy Media to shape the narrative: when liberals challenge officeholders who don’t share our party’s values, we’re dirty hippie insurgents conducting purges. When Teabaggers wrest control from the GOP establishment, they are treated like heroes and given vast airtime and credibility.
This goes a long way to public perception: challenging conservaDems is bad, while challenging establishment GOPs is plucky and people-powered!
Well, I used to have that view.
But I’m over it.
I think that ActBlue’s “more, and better Dem progressives” is about the only way to go.
I agree with all of the comments pointing out the teabaggers are not self-actualized grassroots, but are dupes of big money interests who created the artificial movement. It’s just that this movement may have slipped their bonds and now are turning on the party establishment that thought it could use them as a weapon.
There’s a stark difference between the teabaggers and any liberal grassroots. For decades now the GOP machinery has been fostering and nurturing the extremists in their ranks, riling them up every election cycle with red meat issues like gay marriage, scary brown people and having their guns taken from them. The teabaggers are a phenomenon that has reached a boiling point after so many years of being driven by their fears to serve the political whims of the party apparatus.
Contrast that with the Democratic Party, which has spent the same amount of time punching hippies and ridiculing their extremists. Leftists are beat down and demoralized, not whipped into frenzies repeatedly. There just isn’t that breaking point of helpless fury on the left of the spectrum.
I’m not a Democrat. I would rather see a Republican in Congress acting like a Republican than a Blue Dog in Congress acting like a Republican.
That said – if we have Speaker Boehner in 2011 we’ll get empty circuses. That won’t happen if the Republicans are unable to take the house. So at least in regards to meaningless political circuses a Democratic majority is preferable – because they won’t engage in the valueless circuses. It is worth some marginal effort to see to it that Congress have a semblance of caring about policy and not just gamesmanship.
I’d much prefer to see Democrats in the mold of Adlai Stevenson or Eugene McCarthy and Republicans like Eisenhower. I’d still not be enamored of either party to the point I’d call myself a D or R; but in that case we’d have a chance to have politics be about public policy, not the hollow politics as a game we have today.
Alas, you’re right about Lieberman and the Legacy Media. But what have progressives been called while taking on conservaDems since Democrats took power, now that establishment Dems (and even many who call themselves progressives) are so afraid of Democrats losing Congress? I haven’t seen too many 2010 progressive victories. The 2006 case of Lieberman is demoralizing, but I think that a loud movement within the Democratic Party base after these Dems lose power would be more effective than complaining about the stupidity of the Republican leadership.
Agree with your point; quite possible we’ll have that chance.
bingo!!! could have not said it better!!!
In the 1960′s the elites along with the CIA, (the CIA has gone off the deep end) decided the idea of two political parties with different goals and ideas was BAD! and develop the current political parties of the day.
Democrats talk progressive and govern conservative.
Republicans talk conservative and govern conservative.
Simply put
Democrats = Republicans
to maintain the status quo, one must control the direction of the govt.
What makes it all possible?
The MEDIA of today is own and control by the Military and Corporations.
How do you keep the USA populace undercontrol
Few people know this fact, 90% of all HARD DRUGS are consume by americans
SUN TZU says it best and the USA military complex follows it
In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace.
The are of war is of vital importance to the state.
It is a matter of life and death,
a road either to safety or to ruin
Hence under no circumstances can it
be neglected…
USA military budget is over a trillion dollars per year
THE USA done away with DRAFT
What political party in the USA is anti war?
Democrats love War
Republicans love War
By the way you can cut social security, no one ever thinks about cutting military expenses!!!
The big problem that I think liberals have in taking over our party much like the teabaggers did, is that our platform is based on altruism, the greater good and reason. The teabaggers based their platform completely on fear and anger. I think it is much easier to scare people than it is to offer compelling facts.
The successful blue dogs and even “liberal” bloggers like Phoenix Woman, TBogg, Blue Texan, Bill Egnor and others use the same tactic, telling us that the Repugs are so scarrry!!!
So how do we take over a system without using those tactics?
If progressives had a clue, they’d start an Herbal Tea Party Express and primary all the corporatist scum (99% roughly) in the Democratic Party. Progressives can’t get up a million bucks for a primary here and a primary there? What about Katrina vanden Heuvel? Daddy left her 300 million and she can’t finance the Herbal Tea Party Express?? WTF progressives? WTF?
I have been wondering whether anybody has let the Tea Party know that their movement is intent on abolishing Medicare and Social Security. Many of them appear to be quite attached to these programs, carrying signs warning their government to keep their hands off “their” Medicare. This leads me to conclude that either they don’t understand their movement’s ultimate goal, or that in effect they are old white rich people who really don’t care what happens to their fellow citizens, and are simply putting on an act making it seem that they are just good old folks on the side of the average American. Is there some way we could point out to them that their supposedly heartfelt beliefs are simply not logical and cohesive? Should we let them know that they are actually working against themselves, unless, of course, they are totally aware of this, and this is, in fact, their ultimate goal.
REAL CHANGE is coming… can you feel it? Time has come to purge Congress of Liberals and RINO’s… can’t wait… People have sobered up after getting drunk with Barry and the libs bullshit… GOD BLESS THE USA… we are going to make our Founding Fathers proud…
Norske, if we were “way past tactics and strategy” we wouldn’t be in the pickle we are in right now.
You may not like it, but we are in dire need of new tactics and strategy, because as you well know the ones we’ve been using for the past 30+ years have not worked at all.
That is a really really crucial difference. Thanks for pointing it out Teddy.
Word. Up.
The Tea Partiers are nothing more than a Republican base that no longer thinks it needs to pretend it’s anything other than what it is: Mean, bigoted, and on the side of the ruling classes. The fact that they have billionaires funding them means that they’re not successfully shoved off-camera once the primaries are done.
rOTL, if you haven’t read the game theory post, I highly recommend it. You might reconsider your approach.
The Tea Partiers are movement Republicans — TP candidates don’t get funding from the Koch brothers or any other TP patrons unless they pledge to uphold the Republican Party platform.
The one area in which they differ from other Republicans is that they don’t think they have to hide their essential nature any more. No talk of “compassionate conservatism” from these folks!
Um, except we tried that in 2000, and it didn’t work — in large part because the GOP/Media Complex spins all Democratic losses as resulting from not being conservative enough.
The Republican base was willing to go elsewhere when it didn’t get what it wanted, and the Democratic base isn’t. That’s the difference. That isn’t just a knock on progressives, either, though they’re the obvious audience here. It’s equally true that unions haven’t told the Democrats in power to take a hike if they won’t support their agenda.
Great comments. The tea-partiers have money and a very big bullhorn. I’m looking forward to the spectacle of a Republican party that is even MORE conservative. I hope they keep pushing them so far to the right that they fall off of their flat earth!
I’m with oldfatguy on this one. The way to change the party is to get rid of the rot that is holding all the power. The teapartiers understand this. I think many moderate Repubs are voting for tea partiers out of frustration with the corporate takeover of their party.
I would love the chance to vote for a flaming liberal nutjob at this point. I don’t care how left he/she is or what dumbass things he/she says or believes. It would be a chance to poke a big stick in the eye of the DLC power center. The people are speaking up! We are tired of corporate governance. Why anyone would vote to keep our current crop of Dem losers in power is beyond me. Time for a shakeup.
This is going to be fun.
No, we didn’t try it in 2000. Nader got about 2.5 percent of the vote. His share wasn’t even enough to guarantee a Gore loss in Florida. That’s why everyone was howling about the recount. Voter suppression cost Gore the election as much as Nader did. So did the confusing ballots.
Nor did progressives repeat the lesson in 2004, for what I think were some fairly good reasons. If you think a lesson like that needn’t be repeated several times to be effective, you have no idea how determined people can be to ignore what they don’t want to see.
Saying we “tried that” in 2000 is even less true than saying we tried it your way in 2004 and 2008. For my money, neither of those elections worked out well, either.
Or am I mistaken in thinking the following?
- We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and really aren’t on our way out of either one.
- We are still pursuing the same mistaken economic policies that caused our current mess.
- We are still not living under a government that feels it must obey its own laws.
Please tell me how well all that worked out, because for some reason it still looks like George W. Bush is in charge.
So what has worked? Since 1980 PW, what has worked?
As hard as it may be to believe, NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagal, endless deregulation and willful neglect of fraud in the derivatives market, ever escalating war funding, HAMP, naked girly machines at the airports, Presidential assassination powers, and the health insurance bill with its restrictions on womens’ reproductive health care rights are not Nader’s fault.
Every one of those things has been bestowed on us by Democrats with able assists from Republicans. One could quibble that some were bestowed by Republicans with able assists from Dems, but honestly who can tell the difference any more?
The performance art of each party may be different, but not the policy outcomes.
Somehow we have to find a way out of the mess we are in and voting for more of the same isn’t working either.
Call it whatever, but right now the Republican party is being “reformed”. This was absolutely necessary for them to get another crack at power. DC Dems are too complacent about what a danger the Tea party represents. The DC Dems have de-mobilized the youth vote that turned out for 2010, and spurned the independents and Democrats that voted for real change. It’s doubtfully that these voter segments will show up in any numbers in 2010 or 2012 for Democrats. All the Republicans have to do is keep the economy shitty for the next two years (an easy task since they are being helped by Obama and the Blue Dogs), and Obama will have turned from the outsider that was voted in to make real change to the second coming of Herbert Hoover. Game over for Obama.
The Democrats thought they had voted for reform in 2010, and got snookered. In all probability, the tea party will be snookered in the exact same fashion by the “reformed” Republican party, but it will give the Republicans a real shot at winning in 2012.
Exactly.
I suppose third party is an option, and ultimately it may end up being our only option. But I want MY Democratic Party back. The one that passed social security, Medicare (funny how in the 1960′s, 40+ years ago, when they “reformed” health care for seniors, single payer is what they passed. Today single payer can’t even be considered. How is that progress?), along with a host of other legislation that benefitted REGULAR folks.
And I still believe in my heart of hearts we can get it back. By demanding they come back. Not asking, not sending stern letters, but by DEMANDING they come back or ELSE. And the OR ELSE better have real teeth or it will be ignored. The OR ELSE for us is our vote. That’s all we have that they want. For corps the OR ELSE is $$$$, and they withhold that when they don’t get what they want.
I beleive it will work. But I also believe the current crop of Dems and their most fervent supporters don’t want it to work because they will lose their power. They don’t want it to work so badly they’ll send out folks throughout all the internets warning any liberal/prgressive thinking about holding them accountable that they better not do that, that they better fear those mean ol Republicans, that if you give us a 345th chance, we’ll really do better this time.
NO. I DEMAND my party back. Because as is, I can’t support it ON THE ISSUES. I can’t support the issues these Dems are pushing. Can’t. And won’t.
This isn’t meant to be personal to your comment.
All the “What can we do different” comments seem to point to cynicism as the only rational viewpoint.
We’ve got a dysfunctional policy setting apparatus. I doubt that anyone here disagrees with that assessment.
We’ve got a political system that perpetuates that dysfunction. Funding to get made part of the policy setting body requires allegiance to policies that won’t fix problems.
Cynicism.
Even having a few truth tellers like Grayson (Kucinich, Grijalva, etc) doesn’t fix anything and amounts to window dressing – yeah we can kid ourselves that something might change.
Like I said cynicism.
I think the Halter/Lincoln primary was worthwhile. I made calls to GoTV for Halter. I think that raising the ante on Congressional dysfunction is moving in the wrong direction, and for that reason I’d like to see a slim democratic majority in the House. The districts that flip will be a place where we could possibly affect more progressive window dressers in 2012, and for the same reasons I supported Halter’s campaign (and I didn’t think he’d be all that good at window dressing).
I’ve personally run as an Independent candidate for Indiana assembly twice. The effect of those runs was getting ideas into public discourse, not getting policy enacted.
I’m still a hopeful idealist. Cynicism may be rational, but it doesn’t lift my heart the way quixotic quests do. YMMV.
“Voter suppression cost Gore the election as much as Nader did. “
And don’t forget the pre-election voter purge in Florida.
In basketball, commentators always make a big deal about making or missing the last shot in a close game. In reality the last shot is of no more importance to the outcome than a blown layup in the first quarter or only making 6 out of twelve free throws.
The last significant event is not necessarily the only or most important significant event.
It occurs to me that continuing to support Dems no matter how they behave is the ultimate in cynicism. Like admitting we have only two choices, and the Republicans are batshit crazy, and if I don’t support the D’s the R’s will win, and even if the D’s do win they’ll take the wrong message instead of moving to the left.
THAT’s cynicism.
And don’t forget that Gore WON the election. Don’t know why that little fact escapes everyone when assessing the blame for 2000. Despite all of those reasons, Gore WON. The fact he didn’t have the cajones to demand his victory is all on him.
In short, he behaved like the guy I thought he was when I voted for Nader.
Hey, I don’t know if a recount would have worked in Gore’s favor or not. It really doesn’t matter. He gave up, and he ran a lousy campaign to let it get that close.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
There has been a dynamic conservation going on here since the Coakley/Brown race about how to force change upon elected Democrats who spend every waking minute of their day trying to prevent the promises they made to us in their campaigns from coming to pass.
This isn’t about cynicism, it is about activism, wresting control of our party back from those who are depriving us of the benefit of having our views represented in government.
I have never encountered less cynicism than I have here at FDL in the course of these debates. And I find myself enormously hopeful and energized by the process of determining what we can do.
The most discouraging and cynical act I can think of is to walk into the voting booth and vote for someone I despise because I have “no alternative”. I refuse to be sidelined in the governance of my own democratic country.
Looking at this ideologically, I am not surprised at all by the influence the Tea Party Movement has seized over the Republican Party. I know a lot of folks who support the Tea Party and I think they are grossly misrepresented in this forum. These are the right of the right; they despise elitists, distrust power, and aren’t afraid to show their teeth.
While many hold Fundamentalist Christian positions on issues like homosexuality or prayer in school, the real problem for most (at least recently, IMO) has been the manner of change rather than the change itself. IMO, they’ll be upset if they lose a vote that they consider “fair” because they don’t get what they want (like anyone else), but they become FURIOUS if they feel cheated or if someone is using a position of authority to cram something they don’t like down their throats (health care, gay marriage).
These are the type of people who cheered NRA President and former-Moses Charlton Heston when he dared no one in particular to pry his rifle “from his cold, dead hands”! It’s not so much that they think “We know best; we want X!” that motivates them so much as when they look at Unions and their Bosses, Congress, the LGBT Community, Immigration Rights Activists, University Professors and Hollywood Stars and they see someone telling them “We think we know what’s right for you better than you do” and they get p***ed.
When the Republican Party leaders ignored their concerns, it was the most natural thing in the world for them to revolt. Why doesn’t it work for Progressives with the Democratic Party? The difference, IMO, is that unlike the Tea Party who simply hates being told what’s “right”, Progressives seek to supplant one authoritative voice with their own.
Progressives shout, “Our ideas are better so that’s what we should push!” to the Democratic establishment who counters, “We’re bigger so sit there quietly while we decide! What are you going to do, let Republicans take over?”
The Republican establishment tried the, “We’re bigger so sit there quietly while we decide! Do you really want to keep the Democrats in charge?” line and the Tea Party replied, “Yeah? We’ll then f*** you, too! We hate the liberal elitists but we’ll burn this s*** down before we let some Republican elitists do the same thing! Cold dead hands, baby.”
Progressives don’t begin to understand why the Tea Party has been successful and there’s not really much possibility for them to copy it. All they can do is mock it and misrepresent their members – and leave their own issues unaddressed by the Democratic leadership. Huzzah!
Well, the media consortium created in 2001 that investigated found that Al Gore won Florida if ALL votes throughout the state were recounted [PDF, table of results is on page 8, Table I], no matter which methodology was used to determine accepting or not accepting votes. Under ALL methodologies, Gore won Florida. And Gore won the Presidency of the United States. And didn’t have what it takes to fight for the job when it mattered most. You could make the argument that this proves he wasn’t qualified for the job to begin with.
This is the most intelligent thing anybody has said about this movement on this blog. All manner of terrible contemporary history about this movement goes unchallenged here all the time.
This remark seems cynical to me. But I didn’t mean to make my comment a personal response to your comment – it was more general about the kvetching about the parties being unresponsive to the populace in general, and progressives in particular. And I buy that it is rational. Grayson is the exception that proves the rule.
My personal experience as an activist and a two time candidate says outside of the two parties it is unlikely
Only because you refuse to see it differently.
Since we cannot seem to agree on consistent definitions of what constitutes “cynicism” and “activism”, it makes it exceedingly difficult to have a conversation.
Look, I’m not saying vote for Democrats. You’re putting words in my mouth that aren’t true to fact. Don’t do that, it’s dishonest.
I’m saying that a Republican controlled House will be worse because of the circuses.
Using your comment style: Please tell me how investigative circuses will lead to progressive policies? I’m waiting for you to explain in detail how 18 months of hearings on Sestak’s primary and Obama’s socialism will lead to good policy in 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
My personal preference would be for 25 Blue Dogs to lose their seats. And for progressives to target those seats (in newly drawn districts where we’ve worked with state legislatures/redistricting boards to make more competitive for our candidates) in 2012 with primaries. Put at least as much effort into those primaries as we did in Halter/Lincoln. Win at least 5 of them, and have 15 or more be real battles for the nomination.
If a third party is viable I’m very much in favor of it.
I’ve been there and done that – in 1994 and 1998 (IN house district 61), plus working in the 1991 and 1995 municipal elections. The municipal elections had the best results for independent candidates – the wasted vote calculus/psychology is very different at a local level even compared to a small state legislative district.
In reply to wmd1961 @ 61
Yes it is, and my apologies for not being clear enough. I wasn’t responding that way to suggest that’s what you said, I was trying to show an example of cynicism, not assigning that viewpoint to you. I know I didn’t out and out say you were saying that, but if you took it that way, then it’s totally my bad for not being clear enough.
Sorry.
As to the rest of this post, I haven’t read it yet. Just wanted to say I was sorry for the confusion. Totally my fault.
thanks.
I don’t like the situation we’ve got. I want solutions.
Losing Blue Dogs is a win.
Republican control of the House looks like a loss to me. Regardless of any rewarding good behavior/punishing bad behavior calculus. That’s my opinion.
That said I’m not voting for Anna Eshoo (she’ll win anyway). I may make calls for candidates, depending on what their actions have been in office, or policies they’ve campaigned on.
I’ll definitely do GoTV for Prop 19.
Now you’re being less than honest here. I never advocated for a Speaker Boner, and whether he does or doesn’t become speaker and does or doesn’t conduct “circuses” is irrelevant to my goal. My goal is to move the Democratic Party back to the left.
To get there, IMO we withhold our votes from them, showing them for ONCE that they can’t take our votes for granted. And yes, I would hope every incumbent D would lose that’s running. Although I would also hope that every challenger D would win, but that’s not part of the plan either. If they lose to Republicans then so be it. If they lose to a third party or independent, then so be it. THe main point is the incumbent D’s lose and then the party learns that they can’t take our votes for granted and they can’t lie to us during a campaign and then govern completely different.
As to how long it would take, I would suggest 2-5 election cycles (4-10 years). If we’ve been consistent with the message that they’ll lose our votes (and the elections) unless they move back to the left, then by then they’ll have heard it and either move to the right to compete for more votes there to make up for ours or they’ll start delivering for us. If they decide to still ignore us and move further right, then we’ll be left with the 3rd party option being the only option.
But either way, I would think if the progressives stayed firm, like the teabaggers are now, and were willing to issue tough love on the Democrats, then we’ll see within 2-5 election cycles whether or not it’s working.
I can’t guarantee it’ll work. But I can guarantee that doing the same thing over and over again won’t either. So now that I’ve answered that, how about you trying it? If we should always support the D’s in the general to avoid the Republicans taking charge, then how long do we tolerate the D’s acting like R’s like they’ve been doing for the last two years before we all agree THAT’s not working???
I ask because for some I expect the answer is forever. We must keep voting for Democrats no matter what they do forever to keep the Republicans from gaining control. Of course, if that is the answer for some, then they’d better be damned willing to accept a lot of bad shit from the Democrats. Because they’ve already learned they can take our vote for granted and govern like R’s. Once they feel it’ll be that way forever, then forever there will be no incentive for them to do anything for us.
phred, my belief also.
I agree that style is less than honest. I advocated for a response to democrats in my comment @22 – your response to that @26 is where I picked up on the leading question style.
The thing is the tea partiers aren’t necessarily going to stay firm in the general election.
And a different calculus makes some sense regarding primaries and general elections. Hold firm, compete strongly in primaries. Let the worst lose in generals.
The marginally good Dems in the generals are where there’s a question – try to engage and make them better? Or cut them loose and primary them in 2 years?
Support? Maybe we get a few votes for good policies, maybe a few bad votes.
Cut loose? Bad votes for sure. And the message isn’t clear – they were cut loose because they didn’t get progressive support? Or because voters don’t support Democrats (eg liberal policy)? We know how the media will spin it.
We really need to win some primaries with progressive candidates.
OFG, I like what you say.
Is that you, mom? LOL j/k
Thanks.
I like what you’re saying too.
I just feel that the lines need to be drawn a bit differently. Vote for progressive candidates.
Send a message to the DINOs.
Send a message to the non progressive Democrats in the primaries, and maybe in the general election too – on a case by case basis.
Thanks! I’ll try to not let it go to my head :)
The pubs are purging moving to more rigth wing nuts. Yet theire is
train wreck coming for dems because they keeping supporting entrenched,
corrupt politicians like Charlie Rangel.
Kinda helps to have all that corporate cash funneled though a Dick Armey and automatic media exposure for even the most trivial events and inane speeches. Still, color me impressed.
Looking at them, and this other post about Game Theory and why it’s not a good idea to keep voting for Dems that kick you in the nuts , again and again, I think the Progressives may also have a strategy here.
Once you get enough progressives and true Democrats in, then revamp campaign finance; push public funding of all National and major state elections; and Instant Runoff voting. That will clean up our system very quickly.