Newshoggers Comments
Relatively good post. My response is up: http://quinnell.us/index.html#1457
My answer to your response is now in your comments section. My friends will tell you I am a man who gets passionate about things and sometimes thereby causes offense. If at any point in my post, I ascribed motive where it was unwarranted I apologise unreservedly for it. Your writings became, as I explained in my post, surrogate for my anger at the Democratic Party's dynastic and priveliged powers-that-be.
Regards, C
Kenneth,
You said this at Shakespeare's Sister:
I would suggest, as I have elsewhere, that we take Cernig's American Solidarity movement idea and force the Democratic leaders to listen. I, for one, think some of them, notably Howard Dean, are listening. We've already shown that we have the ability to raise them money, so their ears are perking up and we've shown them (thanks to people like Shakes Sis) that we can blitz the media and Congress and get them to pay attention to issues such as the Downing Street Memo. Why can't this be something we move toward as a permanent plan of action?
Agreed, even though I am a cynic about actually moving the aristos of the Party any much. I am, still, willing to give it a try for a few years before bailing and trying the Third Party route. I think you would agree with me that if, in the fullness of time, the Dem leadership are unconvinceable then that would be the only option left, yes?
Does this mean I mark you down for the American Solidarity movement - at least in its beginnings as a net-based pressure group rather than a full fledged third party?
Regards, C
As you alluded to in your comments, the only place where I took offense was when you seemed to attribute motives to me that do not exist. And, again, my post didn't contain talking points, it contained my reasoned arguments. I've never seen a Democrat make the arguments I made, although I'm sure they have, so my own opinions based on examination of the evidence can't be talking points.
I also spend time on a daily basis with people in the lowest bracked, in Florida, but neither my experience or yours is representative. They are both examples of anecdotal evidence that conflict with the polls, that say consistently that non-voters would split between the two parties if they did vote.
With the Democratic agenda, you may be correct, but you are wording your complaint incorrectly. It isn't that they don't articulate a agenda that addresses working class people, it is that you don't think they will follow through. Your health care comments are close, but the addition of the word "universal" makes them invalid. You could certainly have state-paid health care for the poor that is not universal, meaning that it doesn't pay Bill Gates' health bills as well. No universal system will be passed in the U.S. under the Dem-Republican power structure, but you certainly could get a system that covers the 44 million uninsured. And I have heard many Democrats refer to increasing the minimum wage to a workable level. I also think it is unfair to blame the current Democratic leadership -- all of whom have been on the job less than a year -- for the sins of Daschle, McAuliffe and Gephardt, who are no longer in power. We should have some patience with Dean, Reid and Pelosi. Not unending patience, but some patience, since they are new to the job.
I also don't think that your comment about dynastic leadership in the party is all that accurate, considering that the current leadership is new and in Howard Dean's case, staunchly opposed to the tactics the old leaders used. Maybe you're making an argument I'm not aware of, but you'd have to make it a little more clearly. As for a coherent strategy for changing the Democrats, how about helping them take control of Congress in 2006 and then making them follow through on our agenda after that? The voting with your feet for a third party thing sounds good in theory, but it tends to fail in reality. I think the Nader situation proved that. How did mainstream Dems respond to the Nader candidacy in 2000? By moving toward the center and fleeing Nader's positions. We've got to reverse that not only for our own sake, but if the Democrats want to win, they have to appeal to the left, not the right.
I'm not sure the third party route has any chance of success until we get the Dems to change the laws that keep third parties out. If we can get those laws changed, I'd certainly support third party activity, but I'm not sure we can get those laws changed, even if the Dems come to power, sin
since it is not to their benefit to do so. Maybe a series of voter-sponsored initiatives at the state level could work where possible. I never believe that there is only one option left, but if a Democratic-controlled Congress failed to push our agenda, I would be much more open to third party politics. I never argued anything against the American Solidarity movement, as long as it takes the more logical route of trying to reacreate what the Religious Right did to the Republican Party, then I'm certainly on board.
Hi Kenneth,
I've added an addendum to my post.
I remain unconvinced by your arguments, perhaps because I was involved in the growth of the tenant housing co-operative structure in the UK - something all the experts of the time said was impossible. However, I am moved to agree that the Dems should be given a chance to work with the left. See what you think.
Regards, C
I completely agree with the addendum, although I'm not sure about the specific timing. I think it makes a difference wether Dems win the elections or not. If they lose again in 2006, how can we say they've abandoned us or not. Sure, we can condemn them for failing to win and therefore not pushing forward our agenda, but what if they lose and then come around to our point of view after they finally learn their lesson? And since 2008 is a presidential election, I'd have to say the same thing. What if they lose? And beyond that, since a new president wouldn't even go into office until 2009, does that really give them enough time to do anything? Unless maybe you're talking about the end of 2009. Again, I agree with you, I just question the validity of setting a hard deadline.
I think a deadline sharpens minds, it keeps people active and working and at the end it will provide a definitive point for re-evaluation rather than an open-ended "is it time yet?" which would only perpetuate division. Make it a date everyone can agree on, whatever makes sense. Midsummer 2010 then?
regards, C
I see no reason to introduce artificial dates, nor to toss the entire Democratic party aside because of the shortcomings of some. As the GOP moves ever rightward and the Dems locate the center, it leaves a natural space for a left party if the right leaders and issues step forward to mobilize that bloc of voters.
Let me throw out a framework and I'll try to expand on it at Simianbrain after I read Kenneth's post. Keep in mind this is pie in the sky, I just got home from work, off the top of my head stuff, drawing largely from the Nation article on the WPF in New York State. Let's say that our issue is living wage legislation and our goal is to pass the legislation in two additional states:
1. Find the districts. State legislative districts in states where activism is already working on that topic. Places where the Solidarity Coalition can work to get money and volunteers to candidates who promise to co-sponsor and work for this legislation.
2. Use ActBlue (i.e., use existing resources), a website, and an organized NetRoots campaign (haha! That we might have to invent, but certainly the concept is evolving remarkably fast. Why not guide it?)to push money and volunteers into these races, coordinating with local activist groups on the ground.
All politics is local, right? We live in a decentralized age where money can be donated at the speed of light. The Dean campaign, as just one example, showed how hungry people are for a chance to be a part of real change. And that change will happen state to state.
As the organization evolved and the approach was fine tuned, our goals could grow loftier, but I think it's best to start at local levels, where a contribution of a few thousand dollars actually means something.
Sorry, I'll try to work on something more concrete for posting at Simianbrain. It isn't as though we don't have a number of well-read bloggers who would at least hear us out, and through that an audience of possibly tens of thousands of potentially interested people.
Have you ever been involved in a major project that didn't have a date set at which you stop and evaluate whether its going well or should be canned? I haven't. Kenneth, try telling your students they have infinite time to hand in their assignments. What will happen?
If you don't set a deadline for an evaluation of progress then progress will be let slide. The project would become, in my mind, not worth the effort because all you are doing is prepetuating the "is it worth it?" debate across the lifetime of the project and setting that lifetime to "I dunno, whenever". Let's get real here.
Regards, C
Maybe it's a lack of realism in goals/timeline creation then. "We're going to dump the Dems if they don't do what we say by 2010" to me says you've already dumped them. So what do they care? You live in Texas. You don't have a voice anyway.
I prefer a pressure organization that can evaluate results and approaches on a per-election basis.
Whereas not setting a timeline suggests to me (and, I think,the Dem leadership) that you would never dump the Dems no matter how much they ignored the left and moved towards Republican-Lite. It draws many of the teeth of a pressure group.
Regards, C
>> I think therefore it makes sense to say "well, let's give it four years".
I refuse to give the Democratic Party four more minutes, much less four more years. From now on, if there's still no "electable" third party candidate, I plan to be one of those "lunatics" voting for an unelectable fringe candidate - whether I support any of that candidate's policies or not. This is the only way I can give voice to my opposition to the Republicans and to the Republican-lite Democrats.
You can wait til 2009 - or til hell freezes over - but as for me, my bridge is already burned!
.
I agree with Kat. Setting a date so far ahead makes it sound as if you are hankering for the chance to avoid confrontation. None of the shit the Democratic Leadership[sic] has gotten us into is going to hold off on taking effect that long, yet you want to wait. I fail to see why.
What will happen should there be more terrorist attacks used as more excuses for more bullshit invasions abroad ? What if there are more natural disasters, another stock market implosion, etc. Will you then have the perfect excuse for postponing this American Solidarity Movement some more ?
Bah.
The trouble with calling for such revolts as ASM is that nobody in power believes that you really mean it. Why ? Because too many liberals and so-called Progressives have already proven repeatedly that they don't mean it. Even before Kerry, we had any number of sterling examples. Hell, go to Common Dreams and every week you'll find David Sirota weeping about how the Demosaurs just won't get it together, but why should they ? He will never leave their camp. He knows it, they know it, and he knows they know it. Please.
You almost had me. If you want to reconsider this deadline, moving it from 2009 to say, January of 2006, well-- you have my email.
Good luck.
Commenting by HaloScan
