Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Holy shnikeys! Elizabeth Warren raises $8.7 million! (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
    The Senate is about numbers, not messaging.
    What? It's a deliberative body with a small membership that grant large amounts of floor time to every individual senator, regardless of his or her party's majority or minority status. The filibuster, debate structure, statewide electorate bases, and institutional culture all provide individual senators with broad discretionary powers and disproportionate influence over all aspects of governmental operations. Indeed, most senators fancy themselves worthy of the presidency, and many wield their power with comparable effects and media attention. Majority status means much less in the Senate than in any other democratic institution in this country. The entire institution is built around messaging. Plain and simple. Extensive debate + glacial legislative procedures = importance of messaging. As I point out below, we've had the Senate since 2009. Yes we lost the House, but even when we had it, the Senate was the problem.

    My point is NOT that numbers DON'T matter. Read my comment below for a full explanation. Numbers do matter, but only if we have people in place that have the vision and courage to use them for good policy. I don't care as much about the brand in charge if the results are still lukewarm policies. I want strong labor protections, revenue increases from the wealthy to decrease income inequality, stimulus spending, retrofitting revitalization of our cities, infrastructure repair and updating, implementation of sustainable energy (and unionized green jobs with it), higher education funding support that decreases the need for excessive student loans, Medicare for all, the end of TBTF financial institutions, and a stronger federal presence in ensuring all public schools are well funded and staffed with excellent, well compensated teachers. Can you see a centrist Democratic coalition having the courage to clearly, unequivocally fight for that platform? No? Then what good is their majority? Good enough to slowly negotiate away the gains of previous generations with sociopaths on the right?

    I'm a Democrat through and through, and will of course support them, but I am a progressive above party, and I want results. As I see it, the only way we will get intelligent policy-making is to force the party to be more progressive. If that means a few years in the minority while we make our case to the public and build a class of fighting progressives, it will only strengthen our cause (we'll see how the public feels about conservative policies after a few years under them).

    I'm telling you, people will participate in greater numbers when they have a REAL choice, not a choice between a Republican or the person who will only give Republicans some of the cuts they want.

    •  ok (0+ / 0-)

      I see where you're coming from, but that's basically the same argument Jim DeMint makes when he says he'd rather have a minority of true believers than a majority that includes squishy types. It's an all-or-nothing strategy that depends on engineering a major ideological shift, and that sort of thing usually comes to nothing. There are plenty of other arenas for winning hearts and minds, but Congress is the only place for passing good laws or blocking bad ones.

      SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

      by sacman701 on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site