This diary is not about third parties. It is about the choices that we all make in our lives, and how those choices relate to politics.
If we're going to engage in intelligent discussion we have to be able to listen and understand where we're coming from. That's what I'm attempting to do in this diary, to explain the people who are 'giving up the fight,' where they're coming from, and why it matters.
If you marvel at the 'wimpy-ness' of democrats who seem to be choosing this time to jump ship, or if you get angry at people who claim they don't care if we keep our majority, then this is the diary for you.
Below the fold we will:
-Understand the Objective
-Examine the Choices
-See When Giving Up isn't Giving Up
-Relate this all to DKos' Mission of Electing Democrats
-Propose Some Solutions
Part I: Understanding the Objective
My older brother was my employer in a family commercial fishing business. Like most commercial undertakings this industry requires a certain level of autonomy and decision making from the employees. In order to make me a better a better employee my brother instilled in me a central idea:
First, understand the objective
Understanding the objective is the absolute first step to be a helpful individual on an enterprise. Everything flows from a series of objectives. They stack on top of each other. The main objective is to catch more fish. A sub objective then might be to keep the net in quality condition. Keeping this in mind means that when you mend the net you do so in a manner that serves the primary objective.
It's a simple concept, but it is repeatedly ignored or forgotten in all corners of life. That includes politics. In the world of politics we constantly fight over the means and ends, but we rarely, if ever, get together to discuss our view on the objective.
We might say:
"The Democrats should pass the public option using reconciliation."
OR
"The minimum wage should be higher."
OR
"Senator Reid should point out republican hypocrisy more."
But none of these speak directly to main objectives. As individuals we involve ourselves in politics for individual reasons. But as we debate that participation we have to first talk about individual objectives. Passing the public option feels like an objective, but it is really just part of the larger objective of improving healthcare. Passing a public option in surroundings that don't improve healthcare won't satisfy anyone. So before we can argue with fellow liberals about what concepts like 'giving up,' we have to understand what we are trying to accomplish.
The objective is not passing liberal policies
The objective is making the world a better place
Many of you will read that and say "No, you're on the wrong site. The objective here is to elect democrats, read the Mission Statement." Skip ahead and read Part IV of this diary. It's ok, I won't be offended that you've read it out of order. The short explanation is that in order to elect Democrats we have to understand the objectives of the Democrat activist and voter. There is a reason people want to elect Democrats, and that reason, in my opinion, is to make the world a better place.
I'm a Democrat because I want to make the world a better place. I want to increase the minimum wage, not because I have an ideological attachment to the minimum wage, but because I believe that increasing the minimum wage is better for workers. My real objective is improving the working world for American laborers.
Again, it's a simple concept, but it seems to be shucked aside. We've been working so hard for so long to free our country from the nightmare that was Republican rule, that it's understandable that that objective would take on a life of its own.
The Democratic Party is a means to an end, for voters and activists. The only exception should be Democratic Party employees. So when we debate what we 'should' be doing as Democrats, we have to keep in mind why we are Democrats to begin with.
Now that we understand the objective of the individual Democrat activist and voter, we can start to look at their decision making process.
Part II: Examine the Choices
So I'm an individual who wants to make the world a better place. I am also thoughtful, intellectual, and knowledgeable, so I am of the opinion that liberal political policies will make the world a better place.
Naturally, I decide to invest time and money in promoting the implementation of liberal policies. This means electing Democrats. But, I'm just one person, so I have a minimal impact. However, that minimal impact can have huge repercussions. After all, we are talking about national policy, effecting millions or billions of lives.
Lets take a simplified example:
I believe in increased funding for public schools. I donate money and volunteer for my state's Democratic Party Senate candidate. What do I expect to result from my action? We can calculate it out in a very simple example equation:
The percentage amount that my efforts increase the candidate's election chances * the chance that if the candidate is elected he/she is a deciding vote in increasing education spending * the number of kid's helped by increasing funding
In an equation like this we can make what is simple and intuitive complicated. Namely that my donated time and money has a very tiny influence on what happens. However, the 'what happens' is so huge that it compensates for that tiny influence, and potentially makes it worthwhile. We can plug in some very very simple numbers for example purposes only:
Lets say my contributions of money and time increase the chance that my candidate is elected by .01%, and the odds that that candidate is the deciding vote are 1%. But, the number of children who will be positively effected by increased public education funding is 60 million. So the equation looks like this:
.0001 * .01 * 60,000,000 = 60
Wow. My decision to contribute time and money to this candidate has an expected return of a positive effect on 60 students. This is what a gambler might call a good bed. Sure, the odds are low, but the return is great. Like a $1 lottery ticket that gives you a 1 in 100 million chance of winning $200 million.
So we hit the streets. We do more than just vote. We tell others to vote, we call, we walk, we give, we write. Because it's worth it. It's worth it because we're making the world a better place. That's what makes us Democratic Party activists, that's what brings us to DKos.
We do this because this investment has a higher expected return to meeting our objective: a better world. But it's possible for these numbers to stop adding up. Once this stops being a 'good bet' we aren't going to make it anymore. We don't enjoy playing the lottery for the lottery's sake. We do it because of the potential pay out. So what happens if the payout starts to drop?
Part III: When Giving Up isn't Giving Up
So disappointment is echoing around the liberal world. We had it all. We got our sub objective: we elected democrats. This means that we all sat back to see the other objectives fall into place: better world. I don't need to re-hash this debate. Some say it's happening, others say it's not, or it's not happening fast enough.
Bottom-line: people are jumping ship. People are giving up on the Democratic party, on politics, on the President, and on this website. They're leaving, they're not donating, they're not volunteering, maybe they're evening threatening not to vote.
Why are they jumping ship? There's a tendency to label them whiners, thin-skinned individuals who aren't prepared for the real world of politics. They want to 'take their ball and go home' because they are just trying to get attention, or they are 'retards'. But none of these explanations keep the 'objective' in mind. These people are jumping ship because their actions as Democratic Activists are no longer achieving their objective at a rate that justifies their involvement.
If expected return is lower in the Democratic Party then it is in other actions, then it is no longer rational to support the Democratic Party
There is a very important point that needs to be made before we continue: it doesn't matter whose fault this is. If the return on investment A is lower than the return on investment B, then I'm going to invest in B. It really doesn't matter to my decision making process why the return is lower. So we can blame the process, or the media, or the tea baggers, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the decision that the individual activist faces.
We can see this in our original equation. If Democrats need 65 Senators to be effective, then the odds that my Senate candidate will be 'the deciding vote on education funding' plummet. Let say they fall from 1% to .01%, or effectively zero.
Now, instead of an expected return of helping the lives of 60 children, my efforts have an expected return of helping .6 children.
Not only is that less impressive, it is no longer a rational decision. My objective isn't increased education funding, my objective is a better educational experience for the children of the United States. If the Democratic Party won't achieve this objective then I will consider other means.
I will choose to invest my time and money directly, instead of through the political process.
I will volunteer as a coach, or simply write a check to a local school. It's a better use of my resources.
People 'giving up' on the Democrats ARE NOT giving up 'the fight.' The fight is for a better world. I can achieve that better world through use of my time and money in a wide variety of ways. If the Democratic Party is ineffective, then it is no longer a rational place to invest resources in order to make the world a better place.
Is it better to have Democrats in power than Republicans? Yes. But that question is incomplete. It's akin to asking 'Is it better to have Saddam removed from power?' The answer is yes, in a vacuum. But you can't actually answer the question until you answer 'at what cost?' Simply yelling that Democrats are better than Republicans is the same logical fallacy engaged in by people who simply yell that democracy in Iraq is better than Saddam in Iraq.
The decision is not between Democrats and Republicans. The decision is what use of my resources is the best way to achieve my personal objective of helping the world around me.
Part IV: The DKos Mission to Elect Democrats
I'm honestly baffled by individuals who don't see how this is directly relevant to electing Democrats, so this section will be short.
Democratic Party activists are essential for electing Democrats. If activists are losing hope and feeling that they should invest their resources elsewhere, this lowers the chances of electing Democrats.
We have to talk about this issue here at DKos, because we still care about electing Democrats. Should we use the pages of DKos to trash Democrats, or to spread right-wing talking points? No, we shouldn't. But, we have to express what they're doing wrong that is making them less electable. That's a no brainer.
People here are the ones who have cared the most in the past. Given a lot of time and money. We've repeatedly thrown $10 at a candidate who is running hundreds or thousands of miles from our hometowns. We do this because we care about these issues more than most. This makes us uniquely qualified to carry this message to Democrats.
The message to Democrats is simple: if you're losing me then you have a serious problem.
People come on DKos to express their anger and frustration because they still care about electing Democrats. Ultimately, the vast majority of disenfranchised liberals want to express their frustration, because they know they are not alone. They know that this message is an essential part of electing Democrats. The mission of this website.
Part V: Solutions
The world doesn't really need more people out there telling the Democrats what to do. This site does a pretty good job that, generally. With really good ideas. But, I don't want to write a diary where I implicitly complain about the Democratic Party's ineffectiveness without offering at least a brief perspective on solutions.
- Politics Can Change the Tone
Politics has an advantage over traditional charities because politics can make the world a better place just by talking.
- The world is a better place when Admiral Mullen says that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be repealed. Whether or not it happens immediately.
- The world is a better place when a US Senator stands on the floor of the Capital and says that torture is wrong.
Democrats can leverage this advantage to rally liberals. The reason that some people feel like it was better in the minority is that at least we were moving left. Our time invested in the Democratic Party made the world a better place by moving the conversation to the left.
We need to continue moving this conversation leftward, even if the Senate makes it so that we can't pass policies. The Democratic Party can highlight the speeches of Franken or Grayson and be proud of them, not schuck them aside.
- Try and Fail
Liberals would feel a lot better about 'the fight' if they could see the fighting occasionally. It seems counter intuitive, but it would help the Democratic Party to have an actual vote or two that fails.
We're tired of Reid telling us that he doesn't have the votes. We want to see the vote take place. Take one popular proposal. Put the Public Option as a stand alone bill before the Senate for a vote. Vote for cloture and lose. Get a head count. This also creates a roadmap to electoral success. If we need 65 Democratic Senators, then we need 65. But if we never get a head count then it feels like no number will ever make a difference. The odds that my candidate matter drop to a perceived 'zero.'
Conclusion
Thanks for sticking with me this far. The concepts are simple:
We are Democrats because we want to make the world a better place. If the Democratic Party isn't going to do that, then we are going to invest our resources in the world outside of politics. Giving up on politics to spend time and money elsewhere is not 'giving up the fight.' Why, when and how people give up on politics is highly relevant to electing more Democrats in the future. If we recognize this problem for what it is, we can do some little things to alleviate it.
Maybe I should have just written that last paragraph instead of the entire diary . . .