Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats and silos: What to fight for? Hint—everything (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Money was important (17+ / 0-)

    but it was not the only thing.

    There are lesson to be learned from a movement that went from being use to mobilize GOP voters in the 2004 Presidential election to winning 9 years later.

    •  gay people got pissed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      claude, Armando, FarWestGirl

      And focused on fighting on a state level for what they wanted. They hired a very good organizer and he went to work fighting to turn things around. It was the money and the narrow focus on marriage equality that helped win this fight. Marriage equality was a tangible goal that could be reached and it involved a game plan the right wingers developed to change things on a state level.

      I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

      by jbou on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 12:08:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was a VERY well run fight (8+ / 0-)

        Lobbying, fund raising, general PR, framing, and a nice loud voice...iow very visible demonstrations. A rare, and winning, combination.

        The gay rights movement has an impressive package, so to speak.

        Let's do the same thing on, well....everything else. Use this as a model, I think is the point, and it is a good one.

        •  We use it as a model though (11+ / 0-)

          Putting aside the fact that this fight isn't over, the model they used cannot be used for things like environmental issues or economic issues because the model requires large amounts of support from the wealthy and that just isn't going to be the same for these other issues. There's never going to be a wealthy person who comes out as really being poor, or affected by the environment. It was a great model but I don't see how it can be moved to some other issue. It was the model of single issue campaigns.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 01:34:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well ok put it this way (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            devtob, lotlizard

            For things to change as we would all like it will take one of three things:

            Masses, like Egypt, of 'poor' people in the streets. (Some of the middle class is now poor too, to swell the numbers and rep to their friends)

            An infusion of money from everywhere we can get it. It all depends on people being involved, including rich people. It's America, if we can't get money, fuggedaboutit.

            We win the House and then we will still have to eert massive pressure on the new Pols.

            All three of those have elements that make them unlikely. But without at least one or two of those things happening there won't be massive change.

            Iow, something has to change, money, boots/street, or politics as unusual,....before things can change.

            •  Other than the money thing I agree. (4+ / 0-)

              But if the money is the key then we may as well give up on economic reform because it won't happen.

              What that means is identifying the issues that affect a large cross section of the population that we can organize around, simple as that. And they have to be an immediate issue rather than global warming, for as big of a problem as that is.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:41:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Income Inequality (7+ / 0-)

                It's at the heart of everything.

                We need a new context in which to frame it. And I think if 'it' were presented correctly a fairly good chunk of rich people would contribute.

                A context and a solid achievable goal, and more context.

                Which is where we are back to the subject of the diary, lol.

                •  If we get the rich people involved (7+ / 0-)

                  then they're going to present us with a bullshit plan that won't solve the problem. They have pushed for solutions that work for rich people and make minor tweaks in the system. If we do that we'll be right back where we started and it'll all happen again in twenty or thirty years. We need a people based movement that isn't run by the rich like other movements have been.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:17:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you presume that all rich folks (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mad cat

                    are antiprogressive. I'm not sure that's true-- but then again, I'm not a rich person so maybe my view is uninformed. My sense is that at least some portion of those newly wealthy recognize their good fortune in life has been due to the boosts provided by, say, Pell grants, and also recognize that the ongoing costs and consequences of global warming are going to threaten not only their present prosperity but that of their heirs.

                    In short, I think that some degree of class warfare is in order if only to make the obvious point that the uber-wealthy owe some debt of gratitude and recompense to the citizens of the country that made their fortunes turn so very sunny. But I would caution against labeling "the rich" as enemies of progressive political ambitions. While not a predominant theme, I like to think that a truly progressive political and legislative agenda truly has the potential to "lift all boats" (contra to the republican's false promises and policies) and nothing could motivate our potential base supporters more than leaving that aspirational goal out there as a carrot at the end of the stick. Without it, all we are left with is the rightist caricatures of the progressive movement as closet socialists intent on effecting a program of forced income reallocation from "the makers to the takers".

                    "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." Martin Luther King Jr.

                    by Arabiflora on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:23:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not about them being progressive (0+ / 0-)

                      or not. It's about what long term solutions they are willing to accept in large numbers. I'm not saying we should shun them, I'm saying that having a plan that relies on them, as the GLBT plan did, will end in failure.

                      If they're willing to be class traitors then I welcome them, but we can't expect large numbers of them to do so. And even then, we need to make sure that they don't get more say in what we are working toward than other people involved.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:04:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  If we're to overcome income inequality (0+ / 0-)

                  it means building an independent culture of solidarity among the working people that would look askance at the money of the rich.  That money would immediately appear to take the form of Jonestown kool-aid to the sort of mass movement necessary to defeat the growing hegemony of capital.

                  "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

                  by ActivistGuy on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:07:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site