View Story | 219 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. S. Holmes
by Carnacki on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:17:51 AM PDT
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:19:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
by Carnacki on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:21:52 AM PDT
Then again, I know that some of your critics are in fact hard workers for the Democratic Party.
But I also know that some who are hard workers for the Democratic Party aren't really spending any time focusing on exactly what it is about the Democratic Party that they're working for, other than the generally acknowledged truth that it's easier to try to fix what you've got than to start over again.
My own interest in the conversation yesterday was on finding out whether and why, exactly, that's true. Long term projects can be pretty long term. Some of them take decades. And I was wondering whether, that being the case, there really were any relative merits to fixing what we had rather than taking what was working, carving it out, and building on that under a different banner.
I am not a "third party" advocate. In fact, it's my expectation that doing what I described would ultimately just end up creating a new entity that would replace one of the existing major parties, and we'd be back down to two, shortly.
But even that is something I don't necessarily advocate. I was just wondering what -- once you accept that this will be a long term project -- makes rebuilding under the name "Democratic Party" any better than taking the core of what exists there now, which we must acknowledge voted overwhelmingly in the right yesterday, and building on that substance, rather than just on the name of the party itself.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:27:55 AM PDT
... or to jack one?
With a maverick like John McCain, who needs a toady?
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:29:16 AM PDT
Is the car working?
Do you already have an assembled drive train and body, but lack wheels?
We're not talking about going on the street to recruit candidates. We're talking about taking the bulk of a working car and fixing it, but also adding a new coat of paint and calling it a different color.
Can you do all that and not paint it, and not call it something else? Sure.
But if time is not of the essence, then what's the cost of the paint?
There's no suggestion here that it's inherently better to rally most of the same people to a different flag. But the question that was posed is why, if the time element is taken out of the equation, it's inherently better not to.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:32:36 AM PDT
I just don't trust the people who are driving it.
I think the fundamental values of the Democratic party are sound. I think the fundamental aims of the Democratic party are noble.
I think the people in control of the party aren't working effectively for either Democratic values or goals.
I'm just as critical as anyone else who complains that the Democratic Party hasn't done enough to distinguish itself from the Republicans, by and large.
This presents a number of options:
Since I started paying attention, in the mid-seventies, progressives have mostly been bouncing back and forth between choices 1, 2, 3 and 4.... while the right-wingers chose Door Number 5.
Here's the thing about these options, respectively:
If, like me, you don't like these Democrats, then it's time to raise us up a whole new crop. But to do that, we have to plant seeds, water them, fertilize them, and not just stand around waiting to see if this year the crops look better than the field we left fallow last year.
On a personal level, because I don't like a whole lot of the Democrats we've got now, I'm trying to become the kind of Democrat I want to see more of. It's an inside job.
I think we’ve got to look to each other, starting on the local level, in our communities... to build a political climate in which we rise up through the ranks... supporting each other with time and money... and increasingly occupy positions of influence and authority in order to institute the changes we desire and desperately need.
If you think that'll take time, you're absolutely right. There's no time to waste.
But if anyone has got a better alternative, I'd love to hear the plan.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:41:31 AM PDT
I'm just saying is all.
by Carnacki on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:46:50 AM PDT
if you're being... detained. ;)
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:50:16 AM PDT
On the other hand, that means that if you're detained, at least you don't have to mow the lawn.
"I play a street-wise pimp" — Al Gore
by Ray Radlein on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:13:29 PM PDT
Can be viewed as detainment, in some circles.
I would rather be fishing...
Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007
by Ed in Montana on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:27:08 PM PDT
"my birth cry will be the sound of every phone on this planet ringing in unison"
by raines on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:30:59 PM PDT
I can give up working for them, but it's a lot harder to give up caring about the outcome.
Plenty of our compatriots do it, but I don't think it's even possible for me not to care.
by pat of butter in a sea of grits on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:13:08 PM PDT
you are willing to engage in these activities while the country, its laws, and its standing in the world are destroyed while you do your good work.
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, Malacandra.
But, "Houston, We Have a Problem!"
We have been caught flatfooted, again, while the Republican spin machine positions itself to develop a Royal Executive who can override the courts, ignore the Legislature, and engaged in continued violations of international law.
We just don't have time...
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood.
by Granny Doc on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:47:21 AM PDT
What's your plan?
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:50:39 AM PDT
Republican candidate win. (No, not trolling - hear me out).
The economy is about to crash. The wars in Afganistan and Iraq are a disaster. The Constitution is being undermined on C-SPAN as I listen. I say, let the Republican have it.
We have two more years with the Idiot in Chief. The Disengaged don't seem to think any of this matters to them - half of those eligible don't bother to vote. I say let them reap the rewards of their ignorance and disinterest.
Let the Republicans stand by in complete control while the entire system falls apart. Then there will be an opportunity for the Progressive message to be heard without the filters imposed by Rove and the distortions created by the Stupid preaching to the Ignorant. Let 'em have it - the whole ball of wax they have created. They will not have a chance to control any branch of government again, in our life time.
Bailing them out of this disaster they created will serve no purpose but that of providing cover for the insane ideas they espouse. Let them have it. All of it. The world they think works on a Laffer curve, no taxes, the MIC building up to provide mercenaries. Let them have it all.
Maybe we can get the publics attention then.
No troll ratings please. I am merely expressing the frustration and anger I feel. Some times you can win, by losing...
by Granny Doc on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:01:12 PM PDT
by a distant win.
the dead cannot be rationalized away, at least not by me.
one party rule = fascism
Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)
by hypersphere01 on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:02:43 PM PDT
by Granny Doc on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:03:32 PM PDT
There were other parties in some facists regimes
"She has the name recognition, the money, the glitz, she's got it all." Terry McAuliffe
by naufragus on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:14:38 PM PDT
a party without any power, well isn't really a party now is it?
by hypersphere01 on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 10:30:44 AM PDT
grow up thinking all this is normal? Not even being able to hear the word "liberal" without an instinctive sneer that aborts all rational consideration of liberal philosophical concepts? An educational system that allows monstrosities like homeschooling by Dominionist curriculum? A population that accepts the imposition of what amounts to martial law without even understanding or caring what it means? There won't be much left to save it that goes on for too much longer - it'll be like starting the Enlightenment all over from scratch.
Malacandra is almost exactly right. There isn't anything wrong with the party per se, but there are things wrong with the system that need fixing, like campaign financing that forces politicians to listen to corporate lobbyists over individual citizens.
The V Effect
by Alien Abductee on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:23:18 PM PDT
We've got Prop 89 on the ballot here in California.
Clean Money. I'm aching to vote for it.
I'd also love to see Instant Runoff Voting...
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:27:43 PM PDT
to any possibility of creating a viable third party, or at least a cohesive progressive bloc that the two major parties would have to woo in order to get 50.1%.
The Open Primary Initiative that was on the last California ballot was very close to this, although I don't think that many people understood that at the time. It would have created an open primary, where everyone could vote their conscience, and the two top vote-getters would go on to the November ballot. It could have been a Dem and Repub candidate, or even two Dems. It would just have been the two top winners. Then in November, everyone would vote again.
This would have eliminated the "spoiler" idea, since there would only be two candidates in the race.
The primary would have been really the best "poll" possible, since everyone could vote for their candidate, and philosophy, of choice, without the worry of "throwing their vote away" or being a "spoiler". The added bonus would be that no one could win without at least 50.1% of the vote.
With this system, at least we could all really find out where the voters stand on politcal philosophy, and could enable the formation of voting blocs that would be close to having multiple parties.
"If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy." -teacherken
by offgrid on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 09:23:41 PM PDT
and share them, sometimes, but I am truly afraid of where the Republicans will take this country if they win again this year. Look what they did with their 2004 'mandate.'
"Going to church does not make us Christians any more than stepping into our garage makes us a car." --Rev R. Neville
by catleigh on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:24:52 PM PDT
it has to get worse before it gets better. hard to fathom that that is the case, since each and every day i think it cannot get worse.....and then it does. but it seems to be so, that for people/voters/elected dems to understand, the foundation has to collapse.
"The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing." The Tao Te Ching
by hester on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:43:53 PM PDT
Actually, they have that now! The GOP controls all branches of government, controls the military, controls the media and many large corporations, controls the energy.....
And looks what has happened? Death, suffering, wars, most of the world hates us, we are seriously in debt...yet, a big chunk of the public is oblivious and/or decided to live in a fantasy land.
No, we will win in Nov. We have too.
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who....never learned how to walk forward.-FDR
by vassmer on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:19:33 PM PDT
The point I was making, above, is that may not be the best thing for America and the Progressive cause.
We haven't entered the major recession, yet. We haven't had our foreign debt called in, yet. All those intrest only mortgages, taken out to support a spending addiciton encouraged by a government that says, "Shop and Watch", haven't quite caught up with a population with no savings, stagnent wages and disappearing jobs, yet.
But it's coming.
Who do we want in charge when it arrives? In other words, who do we want the population to blamed?
Remember, the Clinton tax increase jump started the largest economic gain in the history of this country. How is it still characterized to this day, by the Republicans and the Totally Stupid?
Well, you get the idea...
by Granny Doc on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:29:21 PM PDT
You can always pressure the Republicans by holding Bush out there.
For whatever reason, you are more optimistic about winning in November than I am. I have no clue any more.
Manny goes to Hollywood :(
by theran on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 02:25:46 PM PDT
a police state has some very nice perks to go with it, even if the population is literally starving, and the only price of keeping that power is to retain rigid repression and make sure the army and the secret police gets fed.
Does anyone believe that the GOP wouldn't be happy to rule even a ruined America along the lines of North Korea?
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:33:14 PM PDT
and pessimistic. The optimistic, and I think correct, way to go is to win power, save the country, and take credit for it. Letting the other side blow it so badly that the electorate has no choice but to turn to us does not work, because why would they support us if we let it get so bad? Assuming it can only get worse before it gets better means we have no confidence in our own ability to do anything.
Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.
by Simplify on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:45:48 PM PDT
You always want to win more. It never causes you problems if you keep pushing.
by theran on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 02:23:47 PM PDT
and I understand where this frustration comes from.
But, you have to keep in mind that there's no clear progression of how things will go after that kind of mess. Our last depression could have gone multiple different ways -- we could have gone fascist, like parts of Europe, or we could have had our own socialist revolution, or we could have had any number of other outcomes. It's a mistake to look backward and conclude that the way it did work out is the way it had to work out.
Though history makes it seem like chaos happens and then people get their shit together, you have to bear in mind that "a better outcome in the long run" isn't always what happens -- though from our particular perspective looking backwards, it might seem that way. Sometimes, revolutions really don't end. Sometimes, horrible situations persist for decades or longer. Sometimes, people become powerless and remain that way for centuries before a new equilibrium is reached -- slavery, for example, is an idea that is thousands of years old. And no matter how big the crisis, it doesn't ever wipe the slate clean, it doesn't make everything start from zero. There is no cultural zero, there is no rebuilding from nothing, and there is no guarantee, when shit really hits the fan, that it won't either keep hitting the fan for generations or that the world won't resettle into a new arrangement that is just as, or even more, fundamentally unfair.
I'm not trying to get pissy with you, honestly. I have had the same feeling myself from time to time. I'm just saying these are reasons not to give in to that temptation -- don't tell yourself to throw up your hands and walk away and let the world figure it out, because real people pay in that process, and because the world doesn't figure jack shit out without people working their asses off at thankless tasks.
by Spit on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:49:51 PM PDT
criticize those that oppose it... especially those that claim to agree with you, claim to want to fight for you.
no mercy.
we're not a part of their pie
they put up or get no support.
I am not going to listen to how the filibuster is being saved for the SCOTUS battle, and ignore that, um, no, it wasn't, they didn't.
Speak up! Even against Democrats when they betray their professed ideals.
And I'm not taking their word for their ideals either.
And I don't think it's a good idea to take on more conservatives to beat GOP candidates without taking on more progressives where we can to balance that.
strong infrastructure and fair play
by pyrrho on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:42:42 PM PDT
I meant organizationally. Tactically.
You can do all of what you're saying within the party, or outside of it.
I'm trying to do every single thing you're advocating within the party.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:49:11 PM PDT
because I'm speaking from a democralized place politically for various reasons... I LIKE that you try to fix the party, I have been there in my life too. Right now I still am except NOT FROM WITHIN, I want to change it by letting them know they cannot rely on me to support everything they do when it's allowing torture, etc etc.
The thing is... the Party is like a machine, it's prepared for our attempts, it's able to sink a lot of our energy... the only time you see it really react and jump to coopt some important new energy is times like Dean, where they worry "is this guy going to start his own movement... is he going to run on his own?" Then they get scared and ask sincerely, "what can we do"... and if we say, "talk more liberally" then they will just talk, if we demand "vote more liberally"... I suppose they'd vote more liberally.
if they know they have our undying loyalty, they'll screw us, they HAVE to because they'll need to go get whatever votes and movements ARE marginal... when we are already on their score card, they cannot afford to worry about us.
by pyrrho on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:03:56 PM PDT
I understand the sense of urgency. I really do.
I personally think it will take less time to elect enough additional courageous Democrats than to start from scratch creating a viable third party.
That's just my opinion, based on serious thought about all that would entail.
It seems to me that building a national party from the ground up, everywhere, branding it, getting it elected into positions of influence on the local, state and national levels... these things will take more time than taking over the Democratic party.
Furthermore, if taking over the Democratic Party will take too long, and building a new party takes even longer, then the only alternatives are to abandon politics altogether: either through emigration or revolution. Neither of those strategies seems acceptable to me.
It's easy to panic and say "we don't have the time to..." work steadily and persistently towards long term goals, but if we don't, we lose valuable time ....
The truth is that we can see that we're quickly losing important battles. We don't know what will happen to reverse the tide if the Democrats, as now constituted win in November, but I'm sure that it will stem the bleeding somewhat.
But we don't know how much time we've really got. The slide we're on isn't at a constant pace... it's episodic and moves in fits and starts.
And as it does, we may be able to make our own gains less incremental as people who hadn't seen the problem rally to our side.
Assuming we have a visible side for people to rally to.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:09:36 PM PDT
It's not.
It ends up being just a different form of your option. That is, you can either work to self-select out those who run the party but shouldn't, or you can work to self-select in to some other organization those who don't run the party, but should.
In both cases, you're changing the driver. The question is whether, minus the restraint of time, it make any difference to say that the car you've driven away in is a Ford or a Chevy.
The reason movement conservatives took over the Republican Party is that they wanted to hijack its infrastructure. My question is, if the infrastructure comes with you to what would nominally be a new party (but would only remain a 3rd party for the time it took for the remainder of the Democratic Party to either wither into irrelevance and fold, or negotiate its entry into either the Republican Party or some new, opposing organization), then what's the value of debating the name of the car you're driving away in?
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:49:01 AM PDT
There's institutional inertia embedded within our system that makes the existing infrastructure not only invaluable, but almost unassailable.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:52:23 AM PDT
But if the infrastructure is traveling with you, what's the difference what car you're in?
Again, this is not about recruiting new politicians off the street and calling it a party. It's only about what direction you're moving when you self-select those you want to include and those you don't.
It's the same project, whether you're "purging" (for lack of a better word) undesirable elements from within an existing party, or whether you're evacuating a core constituency from beneath the existing (but undesireable) leadership of an existing party and using it as the seed of a new one.
If the constituency you're evacuating is substantial enough, it makes no difference. Because with it comes a cadre of incumbent elected officials, and all the infrastructure they've built. Left behind are the others, and what they've built. If the chunk you're taking with you outweighs the chunk you're leaving behind -- and the time element is taken out of consideration -- then we have a harder time putting our finger on the value of what that inertia produces.
Particularly if you're already questioning it.
My issue boils down solely to this: If it is a "long term project," what specifically is the value of retaining a skin you're going to hollow out, versus taking the core elsewhere and putting a new skin on it?
The assumption that party fixers make, I think, is that there's some inherent value in the skin, rather than the core. And I think that the assumption that the others are making is that the value is in the core, not the skin.
That doesn't seem crazy to me. Much less something that can be appropriately responded to with a SYFPH argument -- though I concede it might not be fair to categorize the argument made in quite that way.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:59:46 AM PDT
I think there's some valuable skin to the party and some valuable core.
And it's easy to ignore either or both and just walk off in disgust. And we'd do so to our detriment.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:12:31 PM PDT
All I'm asking is why, if you take what's valuable with you -- including everything that makes it valuable -- it's any better to call that which you take "the Democratic Party" or any other name.
If it's a long term strategy, what is it that makes it beyond all reason to consider calling the portion of value something different?
What little successful formation of actual new parties our country has seen has actually worked something like this. The valuable portions of a party that chose, for whatever reason, not to resolve its internal issues, simply reestablished itself under a different banner. And having taken with it enough of the inherent value of what used to belong to the major party it left, the only options remaining for those who stayed behind was either to fade away, or negotiate entry into either the party they used to oppose, or this new entity.
The question, strictly in terms of the current issue driving this debate, is this:
Taking away the considerations of time, why is it inherently better to rid the Democratic Party of the 35 elected officials on the "wrong" side, as opposed to taking the 210 officials on the "right" side -- and all the resources they command -- next door, and calling it something else?
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:22:09 PM PDT
And I can't easily imagine getting all 210 officials on the "right" side to change party affiliation, either.
I just think the deck is institutionally stacked against a third party. And you say that it isn't a third party thing... but that is exactly what it is.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:30:13 PM PDT
If you can't take away the consideration of time, then the beef is with the "long term" nature of the project. That was the foundational premise of what Markos proposed, though.
And really, that was the aim of my argument: to examine whether we really were interested in letting this drag out for as long as it takes, or whether we really wanted to be more ends-oriented.
And if we wanted change and wanted it faster, then we ought to give some thought to what that means in terms of action. Otherwise, it's just so much rhetoric that'll end up wasting valuable time.
I can't easily imagine getting all 210 officials to change affiliation either. It would require a catalyzing event, such as the absolute refusal of the leadership to enforce cohesion around a fundamental issue, and having that cost us the election. That would be the sort of event that would lead a critical core of (the remainder of) the 210 to offer as an alternative to new leadership elections (and all the institutional inertia that tends to come with them) that the rank-and-file simply follow the declared core platform of a new ad hoc leadership, "elected" as leadership by simply virtue of their having organized this new caucus.
The deck is institutionally stacked against a third party. Which is why a successful third party remains a third party for no more than two election cycles at the most. Very quickly, one of the two (out of a total of 3) parties who are splitting each other's votes will hit upon the sweetener it needs to poach membership from the other two, such that one of those two will be reduced to a non-viable shell. Those who refuse the new bait will either join the other party, simply for institutional protection, or quickly lose their elections for lack of resources (or relevance), and fade into obscurity.
Why fade into obscurity? Because they represent a party whose platform by definition does not reflect the values of enough voters. Thus the remnant of what was once one of two major parties assumes the role of the third party as we traditionally understand it. And soon, it's gone. Like the Whigs.
So in the sense that it's all over in such a short period of time, it's not quite right to consider this as a third party thing, with, and because of, all the baggage it entails for those of us who don't typically buy into third party rhetoric.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:54:34 PM PDT
is if it has geographic concentration. were a third party to run only in urban and majority-minority districts, i can see a stable three party coalition politics managing to emerge.
surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat
by wu ming on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:34:28 PM PDT
But since I'm not actually talking about a party that's designed to persist as a third entity, I've not really addressed that.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 02:43:44 PM PDT
(a serious one, mind you, not a mere spoiler attempt) is that it might empower the centrists to drift even further right once freed of our presence in their coalition, to an open grand coalition with the republicans (as opposed to their tacit one to date).
by wu ming on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:32:27 PM PDT
why cant it just be Jane Doe or John Smith. Why do we have to build a party?
by naufragus on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:12:41 PM PDT
Malacandra, I think that if you look at the example of the Kadima Party in Isreal, you might understand Kagro X's point better.
Almost overnight, the Lukid Party became a sixth place minor party.
by offgrid on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 09:33:49 PM PDT
Of course, Israel already has a mulit-party system. But still, from what I understand of the situation -- and that's not all that much, to be honest -- that's a good general model for what I'm talking about.
by Kagro X on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 09:41:46 AM PDT
but if things keep going they way they have, both with democratic dives on red line constitutional issues, and the nation's disasterous direction as a whole, i wonder if we aren't a couple of years away from it being a better bargain even in the short run not to have to deal with the baggage of a dead, dying or mortally ideologically compromised democratic party.
if we get control of the congress and then play along, like from 2001 to 2002, my feeling is that we could see real impetus for a split party at the county and state party level, and not just what has currently been threatening to fragment down here at the rank and file voter level.
clapping for tinkerbell has limited returns, once peple suspect they're being cynically played.
by wu ming on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:32:19 PM PDT
and maybe only if, time is not of the essence. Which is what Markos suggests is so.
But if time is a critical element in this formula, as it might very well be if the catalyzing issue turns out to be torture, then it's not at all clear that waiting out the long term project is the rational option.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 02:37:38 PM PDT
but not in terms of election cycles so much as the destruction of all existing institutional checks against the abyss we are headed for. there won't likely be a catalyzing moment for the dems so much as a long slow decay.
markos doesn't seem so much long-term in his thinking as much as he is wedded to the idea that a simple partisan majority will end our ills. i side with pyrrho here, that only contesting red seats while foregoing all but a handful of blue seat challengers is a recipe for a more problematic and more conservative democratic party, more of the gang of 14 same on steroids, anethema to where the country ought to be heading. my sense is that markos is fine with this future, but that most people here are not.
bernie sanders gives me more hope for the democratic party running as an independent than anyone else this election cycle.
by wu ming on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 03:30:08 PM PDT
another perfectly reasonable response to this would be that no, time really is of the essence, and the reason it's imperative to take over the party rather than rebuild one in parallel is that it's faster.
If you believe that's true, that is.
In that case, though, the question really revolves around defining how long "long term" should be expected to be. Just ballpark.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:04:07 PM PDT
... as I replied to GrannyDoc above.
I don't know how long "long-term" is, but I have been surprised, pleasantly, by how quickly folks in my neck of the woods, who hadn't been active in politics at all circa 2002, but who became political in 2003-2004 have become essential to my local and state party organizations.
I've been surprised at how influential the new Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party, which didn't exist two years ago, has become. It's now the largest caucus in the California Democratic Party and had major influence in drafting the latest platform and endorsing candidates.
I've been impressed by our ability to get Howard Dean to head the DNC.
All of this has happened faster than I might have predicted.
Opportunity favors the prepared!
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:25:33 PM PDT
I mean, bascially, the scenario I've outlined is just a rewriting of the history of the actual foundation of the Republican Party.
Disaffected Whigs met in their local committee structure, and simply voted to reorganize themselves under a new banner, in order to adopt their preferred anti-slavery position as the central tenet of their new party. That position attracted a considerable number of already elected and already influential Whigs to the new party, as well as a not insubstantial number of Democrats, plus the membership of smaller, minor parties like the Free Soilers.
In an admittedly much simpler time, though, the Republicans went from their foundation to winning the presidency in a mere eight years.
Their latter day successors went from the defeat of Goldwater to the election of Reagan in sixteen.
The point is that we're not talking about importing new people and politicians from outer space and calling them a new party. We're talking about coalescing the vital parts of an existing party around a different organizing idea, which as a byproduct would pull the rug out from underneath the remnants of the old party.
It feels wrong, but it's a viable alternative if you find the reins of power being held too tightly, or even, arguably, if: 1) speed of action is important to you, and; 2) leadership elections are too far distant for you to wait to establish yourself; 3) you're sure of the assets you can take with you, and; 4) you're pretty sure they'll be sufficient to sustain you until more like-minded players see the wisdom of following the money into your camp.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:38:00 PM PDT
I think the historical analogy from 130 years ago is belied by the changes in the structure of our society and the ossification of our political institutions.
In the early days of the republic, new parties were coming and going all the time. And then, today... not so much.
As the inimitable driftglass once noted, as someone was advocating the formation of a third party...
Sorry, I missed what you were saying. I was away reading the Congressional Green Party Caucus website, the Libertarian Mayors of America newsletter and trying to decide if I should wear the gray pinstripe or the blue double-breasted to the Constitutional Law Party Governor's Ball this year. Then I had a lovely chat with the late Eugene Debs while I rode on my unicorn to the store.
Sorry, I missed what you were saying. I was away reading the Congressional Green Party Caucus website, the Libertarian Mayors of America newsletter and trying to decide if I should wear the gray pinstripe or the blue double-breasted to the Constitutional Law Party Governor's Ball this year.
Then I had a lovely chat with the late Eugene Debs while I rode on my unicorn to the store.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:00:04 PM PDT
We could examine the growth of the Vermont Progressive Party, which holds a considerable number of seats in the state legislature, plus the mayoral seat in Burlington.
Or we could examine how Lieberman in Connecticut is attempting the same move in miniature. That is, it may not be the case that Lieberman, should he win, would have any long term plans to continue the "life" of the Connecticut for Lieberman party. But what if the Connecticut Democratic Party were to somehow expel him? And what if he won anyway?
What would happen to Connecticut's Democratic elected officials who had endorsed him? What if they, too, were threatened with expulsion? And what if they did leave the party, and instead met and opted to rename the CFL "party" as the "Free Connecticut Party?"
If it turned out that for all intents and purposes (and against all of our common sense) nearly all of Connecticut's elected Democrats accepted expulsion and accepted "protection" (meaning endorsements from and cash raised by the Lieberman machine) under this new banner, then at some point the remaining Connecticut Dems who were for Lamont will either have to successfully stamp out their competition (under the banner of a guy who lost the race, in this example -- God forbid!), or eventually reconcile themselves with the FCP, possibly even joining them.
The point is that Lieberman is doing this, albeit as I said in miniature. If he wins, and CT Dems moved to enforce some sort of party discipline, we'll see exactly this dynamic work itself out. Which is why CT Dems will not move to enforce that sort of discipline.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:09:16 PM PDT
I've been enjoying our exchange, but to suggest that Lieberman's vanity party can in meaningful sense act as a model for developing a viable national third party movement, you've lost me, entirely.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:23:04 PM PDT
But everything's got "what ifs" involved. And lots of them.
Lieberman's vanity party would be a model only if you remove the actual vanity from it. If the disagreement were on something of more substance, you'd have the conditions necessary, though it's not entirely out of the question that the conditions couldn't be created over issues considerably less substantial. Like spite.
Again, it's not really about creating a third party, but about supplanting one of two major ones. On the national level, the catalyzing event could (for the sake of this particular argument) be a split on torture. On the in-state level in Connecticut, the catalyzing event could be a motion to expel Lieberman supporters. Either would be intolerable to be on the other side of leadership from, and would necessitate one of two possible options: 1) replacing the leadership, or; 2) withdrawing the rank-and-file from below, such that the leadership retains nothing to lead.
That Lieberman is probably incapable of creating enough gravity to remove enough rank-and-file doesn't really change the viability of the model. It only makes him incapable of executing it.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:33:01 PM PDT
by lightyearsfromhome on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:14:30 PM PDT
... but seeing that most of my diaries sink into oblivion, and Carnacki's get on the rec'd list... I think more people will see it as a comment here!
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:43:39 PM PDT
by Carnacki on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:02:17 PM PDT
It's kinda like that.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:04:33 PM PDT
money for Al Weed...
Of course, I have a knack for posting diaries that miss the wave, or conflict with the bling of the day... <g>
by Granny Doc on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:04:34 PM PDT
well, I for one have been left behind by the popular left blogs... I don't believe in maligning the Sierra Club, inventing right wing frames like "purity troll" to slur ideological progressives... I don't believe that we should only support candidates running against GOP incumbents, I don't believe in shutting the fuck up.
There is too much assuming in the Democratic Party that we all believe the same things, so I look to the elected Democrats to see what is being talked about... and I don't see what I believe in there either.
Refusing to spend resources on a losing strategy is not "giving up" of course... in fact, it might be the opposite. We'll have to be creative here.
by pyrrho on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:38:25 PM PDT
if you choose to not ride on the Dem bus because you don't like the drivers, you'll wind up riding on the GOoPer bus, whether you like it or not ...
the question becomes: do you ride with the Dem driver, or the drunken fool gooper?
Which pundit most resembles Ruby Rhod?
by wystler on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 02:20:37 PM PDT
If 2004 == 1964, that means it's going to take us FOURTY YEARS to become sane again.
That's 2044. That's post-peak oil, post-peak natural gas, post-point-of-no-return on global warming, post-(alledged)-collapse-of-Social-Security, post-collapse of the US economy (I'm giving us 20 years, max)....
I can't afford to wait fourty years. The world can't afford to wait that long.
"Abortion and the Law" (CBS, 1965)
by lemming22 on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 04:09:52 PM PDT
First of all, the fruits of the conservative movement's revolution arrived in 1980, with Reagan: not in 2004.
Which is still 16 years. But I think we've got advantages:
They didn't have the kind of organizing tools at their disposal that we do. They also were growing a movement that actually works against the interests of most of the electorate.
And they didn't have anyone who was nearly as big a failure as W to hang around the necks of their rivals.
They, of course, tried to make Carter look that bad, but he wasn't in the same league as W.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 04:42:37 PM PDT
by Carnacki on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:31:37 AM PDT
But that's not what I was doing. I have to let the people who argue for that do it in their own words.
by Kagro X on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:33:18 AM PDT
I wonder why we just dont climb over the fence
by naufragus on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:49:05 PM PDT
gain control of both houses. Should it make any difference in what they are attempting to do now versus what they would do if they had control of Congress? I would hope that it wouldn't matter with the exception that they would have the numbers to push their agenda through. But even without the numbers, we still need to fight the good fight. That's what heroes do. They fight regardless of the odds of success. They don't sit back and wait for the reinforcements to arrive.
I hope the Democrats do gain control of Congress in November. And I hope that one of their first acts will be to impeach Bush and Cheney. Otherwise we will still be up against Bush's veto for another two years. And besides that, these men should be frog-marched out of office and straight to prison.
by MagisterLudi on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:53:01 PM PDT
However, I wasn't expecting this to happen until after the DLC DINOS proved their inability to govern based on their continuing to do the same favors for their corporate donors which in large part, got America into the mess we're in now, (e.g. the bankruptcy bill) only with the power to do favors for corporatist interests other than by following the GOP Party Line.
Under these conditions, it wouldn't be a matter of "fixing what we've got", for us, it would be proof that we do NOT have the Democratic Party, at that point, all the Democratic Party would be for us is a time and money sink, and for us, it would be time to "burn the barn to get rid of the rats".
While the party does appear to be demonstrating that it is going to be unfit to govern, it's too late to do anything about it other than let the DINOs know that we may vote and even work for them today, their choices are to clean up their acts or get Lamonted.
Our problem here is that if the GOP retains power, there may not be a 2008 election.
by alizard on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:26:30 PM PDT
A front pager raised the issue that the conservatives did not quit. What he ignores is the leaders of the conservative movement fought losing battles for their conservative base to rally around.
It should also be noted that THEY use hate, race-baiting , greed, and lies to win.
Yet another thing we should set ourselves apart from... torture eveidently for the 34 in the house... not so much...
Good diary.
"Obama / Steve Holt '08!" - Steve Holt
by cookiesandmilk on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:29:08 AM PDT
is actually just playing to the bases EMOTION to win.
Thats what we need to do as well, but honestly.
the Torture 'issue' is a great appeal to honest emotion.
Yell Louder!!! @ Docudharma
by buhdydharma on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 01:01:04 PM PDT
That's not fair. I know you weren't talking to me, but I resent that comment. I do quite a lot for the party, and I'll criticize your stand on this issue as long as I have to. And what you've done for the party is commendable, but it doesn't make you a better person and it doesn't make your opinion more valuable than anyone else's.
by fezzik on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 12:40:35 PM PDT
That while I have given a lot of money, I have only just begun to wear my shoes out. I've got a lot of miles to go before I work through a pair.
I have only become active in the last few years as I have watched "the system" spin wildly out of control, to the point that "our form of government has become hostile to these ends."
So I am sure that you have me all over when it comes to blood, sweat, and bucks in the cause. But I think anyone, and I mean anyone, has the right to point out that giving up on the party helps the other side and does no good.
But I guess I wasn't so much criticizing you, as trying to tell you to have hope. Most people spend most of their lives politically disconnected. And I'd say it is a good thing that our state functions well enough that it takes so many years of neglect to reach this situation. But now I see many people active and angry and ready to make their voices heard. And I think there is hope in that. I have a lot of hope that people will put the thing back on the rails.
-7.13, -8.41
by evilpenguin on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 02:19:11 PM PDT
phone banking and canvassing and holding signs, and I have always thought the way it worked was any Democrat is better than any Republican, but in practice sometimes just being a politician gives you more in common with politicians than Democrats.
Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Impeach, Incarcerate
by rktect on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 04:30:12 PM PDT
I was building Jerry McNerney's website.
by Malacandra on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:20:18 AM PDT
