Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Russell Brand Talking Points (626 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  not voting worked really well in 2010 (18+ / 0-)

    i think not voting needs to be supplemented by activism as opposed to just "the less bad choice is not ideal- and i'm not voting!"- methinks a lot of people just use it as an excuse, often citing 'principles' they compromise everyday anyway

    brand is calling for activism/revolution and talked the talk in this nice rant (making up for not voting) - big difference

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 08:54:51 AM PDT

    •  It's the responsibility of the politicians (42+ / 0-)

      to encourage us to vote, by inspiring us with their good works.  

      Unfortunately, what we get these days is elections like the 2012 Presidential election, in which Obama wins through an intensive anti-Romney campaign in the swing states while most Romney "supporters" didn't care who he was as long as he wasn't Obama.  I'm sure they've got something similar in the UK where Brand is.

      "Every second "progressives" spend on victory laps and triumphalist wankery makes a Grand Bargain more likely." -- "Lambert Strether"

      by Cassiodorus on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:01:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  precisely. Democrats have failed (53+ / 0-)

        to offer the voters something worth voting FOR.  The best they  manage is WE ARE NOT CRAZY.

        With a few notable exceptions,  like Warren, the Udalls and Sanders, Dem pols are frightened wimps, daily betraying the Party that once gave hope to the masses.

        Meanwhile Kos wants to blame the voters for not showing up,  rather than the politicians for not showing up.

        Kosylvania is divided into those who get Russel Brand, and the rest, just like with OWS.

        don't always believe what you think

        by claude on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:36:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right Now, That's A Very Compelling Reason (5+ / 0-)
          Democrats have failed to offer the voters something worth voting FOR.  The best they  manage is WE ARE NOT CRAZY.
          These days that's a pretty damn good reason to vote for them given just HOW crazy the Republicans are.

          The first thing you have to do is stop the bleeding.

          “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

          by RoIn on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:44:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  love that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KJG52, claude

          the politicans not showing up... thank you thank you

          Politics is a contact sport

          by boudi08 on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 11:51:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  why should dem reps stick their necks out? (0+ / 0-)

          most dem voters and progressives have no clue whawhat their  RW radio stations are throwing at, saying about, and threatening their reps with every day. or saying about them and their beliefs and ideals.

          maybe they have a general idea but there's no real time response so it's OK - and this is what it gets us.

          who's supposed to get who's back? dems and liberals can't say collectively they're getting their reps's backs if they're letting those think tanks take free pot shots at them all day with no response.

          rw radio is their best weapon and has been for 25 years and we ignore it. and we let them get away with election theft and knocking wellstone out, katrina, among other things. personally, knowing that, i can't get too picky about how progressive and brave dem reps get.

          This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

          by certainot on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 02:28:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who cares what right wing radio hosts are saying? (5+ / 0-)

            These days Dems in Congress with a conscience are demoralized because they have to deal with the crazy GOP on one side and a callous, ignorant WH that wants to cut taxes for the wealthy while cutting Social Security & Medicare.   If they don't toe the line and vote with the neolib policies, they get threats and arm twisting.

            You couldn't pay me enough money to be a Dem member of the House or Senate these days.  It must be hell dealing with two corporate owned political parties every day while unemployment and poverty continue to rise back in your state and district.

            If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

            by Betty Pinson on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:05:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  obama does. recently: "talking heads on the radio" (0+ / 0-)

              why do you think the GOP is so crazy? it's never been this crazy. it started about 25 years ago when reagan killed the fairness doctrine.

              and why do you think the perception of where the acceptable 'center' is is so far right? 1200 radio stations blasting all day, deciding what is and isn't acceptable. creating that alternate reality that the teabaggers live in.

              thinking americans have allowed the 1% to have and control the loudest soapbox in history, basically for free, for the last 20 years.

              ignoring what those coordinated carnival barkers have been reading for the 1%'s think tanks every day is the biggest political blunder in history.

              This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

              by certainot on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 10:38:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, hogwash (11+ / 0-)

        It's our responsibility to make politicians respond to and (yes!) fear us by voting. We don't do that by staying home.

        When we don't vote, politicians cater to the interests of the people who do turn out.

        •  As I said downthread (31+ / 1-)

          Conscious non-voting is as fully participatory as voting.  I can't imagine where people stand when they accuse those who actively refuse to vote of making a hopeless choice.  What is more hopeless than the current state of affairs, which point definitively toward eventual ecological collapse, just to name the most dire of many catastrophes?  Insisting that things MUST change is the beginning of hope, not the end.  And those who embrace a system which is a proven failure have zero justification for insisting on perfect prefab solutions from those who are looking elsewhere.

          Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

          by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:28:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Conscious nonvoting, eh? (4+ / 0-)

            I've heard some BS before, but this is primo stuff.

            What's the difference between "conscious nonvoting" and the nitwit who is so out of it they don't even know that there's an election?

            Why, nothing at all. Each one is not participating in democracy.

            How do you suppose the far rightwing Republicans pulled their party towards their direction? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't by conscious nonvoting.

            •  Voting isn't the only way to participate (7+ / 0-)

              in democracy. And if you don't know that then I don't know what to say.

            •  The differences involve imagination and commitment (8+ / 0-)

              The difference between a heroine addict who only leaves the apartment to rob and buy drugs and the community activist who imagines and works toward a democracy in which citizens feel connected to a government which responds to their needs, to state two poles of a wide and rich spectrum of human experience, thought, and behavior.

              I'm not calling your ideas bs. I'm not sneeringly dismissing them out of hand, as you and the majority of those who argue your position do.  I am not insisting that you jump through some absolute hoop before your ideas are even worthy of consideration, as the interviewer does in that interview. No, I'm listening to your claims and doing my best to respond to them, willing to acknowledge the good points and understanding that in some ways you are right, that I don't have all the answers.  I am treating you like a fellow citizen with whom I wish to work out solutions which will satisfy as many of us as possible.  Iow, I enter the discussion, as does Brand, with an understanding of the rich possibilities of democracy.

              Equating voting to democracy, pointing to voting as the pinnacle of participation--this is an impoverished understanding of participatory democracy which, in the end, would be fatal to government of, by, and for the people.

              Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

              by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 12:45:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  As to the Republicans (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              claude, Knucklehead, churchylafemme

              Sure, the Reps did it by going door to door with flyers--it's delusional.  Owning and controlling most of the media played a much more important role than fair and square electoral politics in their success.  You do know that the Tea Party is a corporate creation fanned especially by Fox News, right?  Unless you consider influencing votes through blanket propaganda funded and created by a small percentage of citizens in order to further their own selfish ends effective democracy.  Give me $100 billion and I'll change the conversation, too.  Give me a string of radio stations covering the nation from coast to coast, and I will show you that voting can work to my advantage.  And if all else fails, let me steal a few presidential elections.

              Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

              by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 12:52:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If you don't like it, don't do it (4+ / 0-)

              Its still a free country, people can vote or not vote according to their conscience.

              If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

              by Betty Pinson on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:07:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Why is this HR'd!?! (6+ / 0-)

            What, in this comment, could possibly be construed as something requiring an HR? Bizarro...

            If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

            by The Free Agent on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 01:42:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  what difference does it make (0+ / 0-)

            whether you do it consciously or not, if the result is the same? If you do other things, those may have an effect, but not your lack of voting.

            To say non-voting is participatory is like saying clear is a color.

            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

            by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 02:30:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If we lived in a binary universe . . . (8+ / 0-)

              ... and every non-wealthy, non-empowered citizen enjoyed only two choices in the world, either vote or don't vote, then motivation would make no difference.  But we do not live in such a world.  We live in a world in which people can choose to not vote AND choose to do heroine all day.  Alternatively, people can choose to not vote AND edit a political newspaper and use one's celebrity to tolerate the likes of this interviewer in order get a few points out for conversation, an activism which can create lengthy discussion among unknown foreigners in a distant country.  I would say the difference between the two motivations leads to dramatically different results.

              But to step back even further from it, why is it necessary for Brand to be perfect before we discuss the gist of his rant--the obscene concentration of wealth and the unresponsiveness to current government to our needs?  Should I begin to dismiss every word out of Obama's mouth?  My grievances against him are far more serious than merely not voting--he lies ongoingly about drone strikes, to name one thing of many.  But that's okay with you, you still take him seriously when you think he deserves it.  But not voting?  Well, we just can't get past that to other aspects of the discussion.  It's ridiculous, and it bothers me when people like you, whom I read as a sincere participant here, fall for such claptrap.

              Of course not voting is a legitimate choice, and one that is justifiable.  I don't know whether it is the best choice, but it certainly doesn't make Brand less qualified than Obama to speak intelligently on issues of current import.

              Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

              by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 03:18:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  none of the activities you mention (0+ / 0-)

                require you not to vote. It is the other activities that make a difference, not the act of not voting.

                Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 06:49:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "require that you not vote" is a goalpost shift (5+ / 0-)

                  We are talking about an attitude toward one's civic participation of which not voting is one part.  The point is that not voting can be consistent with many different over-all relations to one's civic duties, including some that are more responsible and more likely to produce results than those of most people who do vote.  Thus is answered the condemnation that not voting is the same, no matter what attitude it springs from.

                  In any case, if lying about drone strikes is not a disqualification from having one's opinions at least listened to, then certainly not voting does not disqualify Brand from being heard.

                  Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

                  by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 07:51:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm responding to your comments. (0+ / 0-)

                    I am not commenting on Brand or anything he has said, one way or the other. I thought you were saying that the act of not voting itself is, or can be, a participatory act, and that's what I disagree with.

                    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 07:57:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay, I see. (6+ / 0-)

                      There is a context for the discussion, but I can narrow it down to that.  I think I have shown that some forms of quite active participation which spring from certain worldviews or opinions might include not voting as an internally consistent part of the worldview.  I quoted from Giroux near the very top of the diary--not sure if you saw that.  He says it quite well.  For one thing, if one considers the recent stealing of elections in America, the virtual stealing of votes through money spent by gazillionaires and money spent on voting machine rigging and the other familiar recent practices, then it makes sense to me that a person who is devoted to doing something about what is seen as a broken, unresponsive democracy in which the popular vote will NOT actually represent the will of the people, then it seems clear to me that not voting can be one small part of an activist approach to participatory democracy.

                      Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

                      by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:06:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It seems clear to me that even in that case (0+ / 0-)

                        the decision not to vote doesn't have that effect. Looking at the larger context, maybe the person not voting its engaging in some sort of democratic activism. But that specific action is not a part of that, regardless of intent.

                        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                        by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:36:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So, we disagree on this. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          churchylafemme, cybrestrike, Johnny Q

                          To me, this is a tough issue, because we are talking about a very tough problem, one that no one knows how to solve.  I have no problem disagreeing about it.  I do have a problem with people who think those who disagree with them have no right to participate in the national discourse, which is what the interviewer led with, and what many people in these comments are saying.

                          In general, the tenor of the discussion here has been quite ultimate sounding, seeming to reflect a general view that not voting is so beyond the pale that anything further Brand might say, such as pointing out the obscene concentration of wealth and power and the disregard by the system of the welfare of the people, that none of that is worthy of further discussion, despite the fact these are the defining political realities of our era.  I repeat, all sorts of people who have done much worse things have their opinions listened to every day.

                          So, there is a question of whether voting is a duty.  The answer to this question does not define Brand as a person, nor does it determine the value of everything he says.  But one would never know this from seeing this reaction to that interview.  Frankly, letting such freewheeling discourse and honesty on to the national stage seems to scare the crap out of a lot of people.

                          Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

                          by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:04:17 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I wouldn't suggest that anyone (0+ / 0-)

                            has "no right to participate in the national discourse." Sarah Palin has that right, for example, but that doesn't mean I have to take her opinion seriously. I'm not troubled by those for whom a statement against voting is beyond the pale, even if I'm not so absolutist myself. In any case, I haven't read or viewed Brand's comments yet, so I can't comment on that.

                            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                            by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 10:00:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  And notice the HR on my comment (11+ / 0-)

              Do you not find it chilling that, for a significant number of people, their understanding of participatory democracy runs so shallow that they would dismiss Brand's notions because he refuses to participate as they insist he should, and that such people indicate a belief that the idea I expressed above does not deserve to be aired?  Does this not disturb you?  This goes to the heart of understanding what it means to live in a society that is not run top down, but rather functions through government which arises through the sloppy process of mutually respectful public debate in which each voice counts.

              No wonder most of these same people believe that once the election is over, it is the duty of citizens to support the person they voted for no matter what he does.  To them, participation begins and ends with voting, no matter how powerless their individual vote is to counter the billions spent by a few people to get their lackeys elected.

              Quite seriously, the discussion here scares the shit out of me.

              Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

              by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 03:24:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Resembles the "democratic centralism" of Lenin. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                geomoo, Johnny Q

                Or the Council of Nicaea, for that matter.

                Disagreement was o.k. right up to the taking of the vote.

                But once the vote was decided, it became everyone's duty to support the winning political / ideological / theological "line" and its front men.

                Non-support = heresy, and the party / the church justly targets heretics for hate.

                The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

                by lotlizard on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 11:35:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  And we don't do it in this blog. (19+ / 0-)

          Remember, Kos's motto is "more and better Democrats," which in practice means putting absolutely no pressure on Democrats whatsoever to behave themselves.  The ban on discussions of third-party candidates is especially important in Kos's refusal to put pressure on Democrats.

          When we don't vote, politicians cater to the interests of the people who do turn out.
          I couldn't agree less.  Politicians win elections these days by telling the public that the other guy is worse.  The 2012 election is a prominent case in point: Obama won through an intensive anti-Romney campaign in the swing states, while Romney voters didn't care who he was as long as he wasn't Obama.

          Our politicians don't have to cater to any voters at all.   I'm sure they have to cater to moneyed interests, but that's something different.  Electorally, they can surf home on the marginal inferiority of their election opponents.

          "Every second "progressives" spend on victory laps and triumphalist wankery makes a Grand Bargain more likely." -- "Lambert Strether"

          by Cassiodorus on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:29:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Taking your ball and going home (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elmo, jmcgrew, Aquarius40

            has never been a good answer. It's a childish answer. Advocating for a better government by non participation is not a solution, it's the opposite of democracy.

            Can we improve our system, yes. Must we scream and kick to improve the system, yes. Does it go way wrong sometimes, yes.

            But please enlighten me, when has the silent treatment ever worked?

            •  There is no ball to take home (11+ / 0-)

              when the ball (votes) is limited to whom the wealthy class wants us to have as choices. We're voting for whom the capitalists (Dems and Repubs) decide we can vote for.

              Candidates are vetted by the wealthy interests, and no candidate who is truly for the interests of the people ever succeed.

              Thus voting is akin to jumping through a maze for trained rats. It pacified the public into thinking they have at least some control, when in fact the electoral process is set up to exclude real voices of the people.

              The electoral process drains our energy, saps our strength, robs us of our money and time, and distracts us from realizing we are getting nowhere in terms of significant progress.

              Sure, they will give us marriage for LGBTs, toss a bone now and then to make us cheer the moment of small victories, but real change has not been seen for decades.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 02:44:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Why bother to pitch a campaign (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jmcgrew, Aquarius40

            to people who won't be bothered to get off the couch? If you don't vote, if you don't participate, you aren't on the political radar.

        •  Politicians cater to the interests (11+ / 0-)

          of whoever writes the checks. They could give a rat's ass what the voters think about issues because in their minds the only purpose for voting is to put themselves in power so they can enact policies that benefit the big money guys of the MIC.

          •  "Politicians" is a pretty big they to be so self (0+ / 0-)

            interested. Maybe "too many politicians" have such single purpose of catering to big money donors.
            Probably many enter for higher minded reasons. In theory it is a noble profession although in practice it is not. As a kid I use to get dreamy about the idea of researching, considering and debating and coming up with laws to make this a better functioning country.
            But then I hung out with some politicians, my mom worked at the state capitol and I'd sit in sometimes when they were in session. I was a cute little kid so the senators would talk to me, invite me to sit with them, answer my questions. How depressing. Sometimes I knew a bill better than they did and often they had no good answer about why they were voting a certain way on it. Very depressing
            But still...the draw to enter it can be wanting to make a difference, make things better.

            Money is an ugly reality of politics, especially running to get to Washington. Crazy money is needed, that itself perverts things.
            From Mother Jones
            http://www.motherjones.com/...
            Average spent by House race winners, 2008:
            $1.4 million
            Average spent by Senate race winners, 2008:
            $8.5 million

            Then Congressional peer/party pressure and bad habits becoming the norm

            I'm not excusing anyone. I'm sure power hungry and greedy people are also drawn to the field, but 'politicians' is not a dirty word, not an oily profession. We are voting too many dirty oily people in and the system is dirty and oily and smudge up even the clean ones...
            But let's use modifiers when we want to talk about how rotten they are.

      •  Or we could take responsibility by (5+ / 0-)

        loudly and frequently telling them what we expect, and vote them out if they don't listen.  Democracy isn't a once every 4 years effort to fill out a ballot.

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:42:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you remember "Guard the change!" (10+ / 0-)

        "Eat your peas!"
        "Obama's already gotten 96% of what he wanted!"

        Politics means controlling the balance of economic and institutional power. Everything else is naming post offices.

        by happymisanthropy on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:53:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  how about voting for not having a GOP house maj (4+ / 0-)

        ority? thanks

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 11:05:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So vote for power... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, churchylafemme, Johnny Q

          not principles?

          •  your principles wouldn't allow you to vote 2010? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chinton, jmcgrew, Aquarius40

            seems like a lot of people didn't vote in 2010 because they were so naive as to believe the RW talking points that obama the messiah promised to change the world and after 2 years he couldn't so stay home in 2010.

            maybe some really were so principled - but why would they vote in 2008 then?i suspect many were just naive or just fucking lazy.

            This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

            by certainot on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 11:30:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, people didn't vote in 2010 because (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              boudi08, Johnny Q

              the democratic base always stays home in off years. People aren't as excited during off years and 2010 followed that historical trend. The GOP had an uptick because of the various "traditional marriage" measures and the corporate media pushing the Tea Party as a grass roots organization, which it wasn't. There was nothing strange about 2010, the party in power pretty much always takes a hit in the midterms after a big presidential election.

            •  I voted in 2010... (5+ / 0-)

              but I did so because I was voting for great candidates who I though would affect positive change in our government, not because I simply want them to run things.

              Why would you ever give power to people you don't believe in and may not even share your beliefs?

            •  Obama recruits lost the 2010 election (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, cybrestrike, Johnny Q

              Check the stats. Turnout dropped amon young and first time voters.

              Accusing liberal, long time Dems of losing the 2010 election is an HR'able offense here.  The accusation was disproven years ago.

              If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

              by Betty Pinson on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:16:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why does this (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Betty Pinson, CenPhx, Johnny Q

                issue keep coming up?

                I see it over and over in diaries, and even Kos seemed to buy into it recently for some diary he wrote?

                Yet they keep blaming progressives, the most ardent and active of the voters.  It make no sense.

                The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:09:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Conservatives trying to take over the Dem Party (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dianna, Johnny Q

                  As soon as the GOP dumps the Tea Party and right wing fringe, these "Dems" will quickly switch parties.  All the more reason why Dems need to protect their base and stick to core values.

                  If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

                  by Betty Pinson on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:58:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  young and first time voters - that's what i said (0+ / 0-)

                in other comments going back to 2010

                i think the reason they stayed home in many cases was unreal expectations

                seems like a lot of people didn't vote in 2010 because they were so naive as to believe the RW talking points that obama the messiah promised to change the world and after 2 years he couldn't so stay home in 2010.

                maybe some really were so principled - but why would they vote in 2008 then?i suspect many were just naive or just fucking lazy.

                Accusing liberal, long time Dems of losing the 2010 election
                 ??

                no, but they helped because those unreal expectations are shared by many

                liberal, long time Dems
                and their organizations because of their continuing general ignorance of the effectiveness of RW radio- ie the unreal expectation that single payer was politically possible right away, not knowing the country has been blasted with 20 years of anti-single payer radio propaganda.

                i am well aware of and appreciative of the activism and work of individual liberals and democracy-loving americans.

                liberal, long time Dems
                COLLECTIVELY are constantly playing catchup because of it.

                i'm pissed off and even bitter because of all the time lost moving forward and working on issues like global warming and election and media and health reform merely because the left/progrssives/liberals/dems collectively still have NO challenge to the propaganda operation that's been kicking our ass since before it stopped clinton health care reform, put clarence thomas on the court, etc., to now, giving us more debt ceiling idiocy.

                This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

                by certainot on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They had expectations (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  certainot

                  The one they voted for failed to meet them.
                  Ergo, it's their fault for expecting something their candidate was unable or unwilling to provide.

                  Clearly the right thing to do is suck it up and vote for the disappointment anyway, because the only other "viable" choices are even more disappointing.

                  You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

                  by Johnny Q on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 03:01:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, that's all (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          certainot, Johnny Q

          I'm doing at this point.  No matter how mad I get at the dems, I cannot bring myself to not vote.

          But the bottom line is they don't deserve my vote.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 07:42:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, you can't make up for not voting (6+ / 0-)

      by ranting.

      •  i can't not vote, but if i forgot to for some reas (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40

        son i wouldn't feel so bad because i think about politics and am active about it all the time- including ranting

        if i was famous and a lot of people heard my rants i would feel even less badly about voting.

        but to purposefully not vote is pretty fucking stupid i think, unless the choices are between palin and bachmann, for example. i suspect he had better choices and i wonder if he's just waiting for that pink unicorn.

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 11:02:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Says who? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, emal, CenPhx, Johnny Q

        You're not the ruler of who gets to rant.

        Brand made a good point when he pointed out the mess all around today....the result of politicians who have been elected.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 07:48:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sure you can (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, Johnny Q

        Thats part of legitimate activism against the failed status quo.

        If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

        by Betty Pinson on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:20:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right, it't too early to stop voting... (9+ / 0-)

      ...but voting always does and never should lull the masses into creating self-defeating loyalties that subvert justice or slow demands. That's why those who up the ante and demand more must be relentless even against internal opposition, even in the face of their own.

      •  Such people will never be popular here (7+ / 0-)

        because... you know... the horse race is perpetually just about to begin... and our side sucks less.

        But you are right.

        The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

        by chuckvw on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 12:44:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are very natural and human tensions at play. (7+ / 0-)

          Since there's so much to be gained that requires difficult change great investments have been made and documented that developed some science around the agency of change.

          The different brain types and personalities that tend to become progressives and advocates present diverse styles and tactics. Some are intellectually driven, perhaps by ideology, politics, history, religion, creativity, etc. or a mix. Some of us are driven by sheer defiance which can be cultivated as children victimized by poverty, neglect, abuse, social injustice, etc. The development of a robust sense of defiance as a coping mechanism becomes a well heeled skill as an adult, vital at some stages of change, especially the earliest, critical first step of identifying an issue. Triggers.

          There are obviously other foundations for activating people but these are common. Those of us who are driven by defiance, can be the most relentless, the most militant, the first to identify the need for change and the last to be willing to compromise. These are essential agents for change and progress. Sometime the mix of defiance and ideology strengthens, sometimes it delays.

          Appreciating and embracing aspects of change is more fruitful in a milieu that has authority (e.g., corps, military, GOP) but it's more difficult to leverage in the Dem Party with our wonderfully distributed people power.

          It takes all types and dkos is both blessed and burdened with a wide variety! Thankfully diversity and coalitions are most fruitful or we'd all be in our own boring caves etching the stone walls.

          •  I no longer believe the Democratic Party (8+ / 0-)

            is about people power, or that the core power within the party is distributed in any meaningful way. There are anomalies, Elizabeth Warren, comes to mind, but not many.

            I vote strategically, which means mostly for Democrats. I voted for a socialist in an upcoming city council race here.

            Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I have read a bit about the brain studies you mention. I think the conclusions drawn are a little reductive, but still very interesting!

            The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

            by chuckvw on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 03:42:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  No one has the answer to this (17+ / 0-)

      or at least I haven't seen it.  If voting offers little hope of real, needed change, then the question whether or not to vote becomes essentially a trivial one.  We are discussing looming ecological disaster, catastrophic concentration of wealth, global violence and spying--vote or don't vote, who cares, but engage as Brand has done, don't be afraid to put yourself out there as Brand has done, and attempt to do something about it.  Sniping from the sidelines, insisting on pure behavior, squelches the human impulse.  It is not helpful.  None of us has a good answer to the problems we face.

      Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

      by geomoo on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 10:33:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tell that to the new Obama recruits & OFA (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Johnny Q

      They were the ones who didn't turn out in 2010.  Why do you think that happened?   Ignorance?  Inexperience? Hubris?

      If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

      by Betty Pinson on Sat Oct 26, 2013 at 09:00:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i think a lot of young and new voters in 2008 (0+ / 0-)

        didn't vote in 2010 because they naively thought a black dem president could walk into the white billionaire's house and kick ass.

        and they played into the RW talking points- that obama was the 'messiah' who claimed he could fix everything as soon as he was sworn in, while they obstructed everything. and the naive notion that single payer was politically possible. and standard RW voter suppression worked (they're all the same!).

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 09:24:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site