My last “Game On” diary evoked close to thirty comments, most of them critical and for good reason. I hadn’t thought through the last few paragraphs of the diary. I am not sure of what an “HR” is in the Daily Kos jargon but the criticisms were mostly centered around my lack of originality in proposing just another “third party”. Allow me to clarify.
First of all, I am basing all of this on the assumption that we (i.e the progressives”) are a minority in this country. A large one (maybe 35%) nonetheless, but still a minority. Our constituency, of course, should be larger and probably is but for a variety of sociological and psychological reasons, they just don’t come out to vote. The Democratic party, in general , has from time to time suffered for the same reason. Thus, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bushier.
Secondly, The Democratic party is, by its very nature, made up of many different disparate but socially responsible factions . But they seldom move in lock step to a platform of ideas as the Republicans do. For worthy humanistic reasons, leaders like Obama, believe in bipartisanship when they govern. This is based on the assumption that the other party really has the interests of the entire country at heart when economic or international emergencies arise. This was certainly true when Nixon worked with the Democrats on programs like Food Stamps and when Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill in the early 80’s. They kept their fanatic wing at bay. This is no longer true even with regard to support for this Democratic President in affairs of war. To believe otherwise is naïve and self-destructive. That was Obama’s initial mistake when he started to govern. When you deal with vipers, you have to be a viper yourself.
Thirdly, it appears that the historical counterweight to the industrialists and bankers that provided the major financial support for the GOP for the past hundred years is now a paper tiger---i.e. organized labor.Furthermore, we always seemed to have a reasonably apolitical Supreme Court to “back us up” when the oligarchs got out of hand. Now, that is also obviously a myth. Thus, the Citizens Savings decision and probably the coming health care decision.
Now it is basic social psychological principle that a minority can empower itself and make changes in a democratic society if it is consistent in its message and united in its strategy. The success of the civil rights movement under MLK is proof of that. What I meant to propose was just that model. I shouldn’t have called have called it a “third party”. That was a mistake that the feedback pointed out. Maybe a better word should be a movement or even better yet a permanent coalition. The “Occupy” movement is the idea except that it is uni-dimensional in approach and, by its very definition, seasonal.
MLK certainly used massive demonstrations in his game plan but he also made effective use of economic boycotts at the local level and national levels. He also coalesced with various groups like labor groups near the end of his life (which what may have cost him his life). He asked church leaders to join him in pointing out the immorality of greed and discrimination in the nation. And most of all, the leaders and supporters in the movement were in firm public agreement with each other at all times . In the process, they pressured the Democratic Party to do the right thing. There is an apocryphal story that when Malcom X turned the rostrum over to King at a demonstration, he said” now they will listen to you”
At present, the so called progressive movement Is myriad collection of circumscribed interest groups, all quite worthy of support but all vying for attention from progressives (like me). On any given day, I receive emails from environmental groups, wildlife groups, immigration movements ( Dream Act), women’s rights groups, political groups, human rights groups etc. I know that they are all progressive in philosophy would agree easily with some kind of platform of ideas and activities. But they lose sight of the fact that in order to effect any real change to you have focus on the entire system and not just a small part of it.
There are some local coalitions or parties in blue states. Someone in the “comments’ mentioned such a one in NY. But what I think we need is a national coalition as a counterweight to the “owners” described by George Carlin in a brilliant comedy routine before he died. We also need to work within the political system by supporting the Democratic Party but also outside of the system with economic boycotts and demonstrations. This coalition has to possess the power in numbers and funds that organized labor had in the 19th century before Reagan and the Republicans began to eat away at it slowly and insidiously. Yes, many times they (labor) were unreasonably demanding and even at times corrupt. They needed to be regulated at those times but they nonetheless set an anchor on the other side to the bosses who wanted no part of sharing profits with their workers. The teachers’ unions in this country were the one of the last vestiges of this counterweight in 2012. That is why the Republican Governor’s have been so intent on “breaking their backs.
The so called Conservative Republicans started this fight the day after the presidential election by deciding unanimously to sacrifice the economic welfare of this country in order to regain power by sabotaging every effort of this President to rescue us from the economic disaster they caused in the first place. No one broke ranks. The moderates joined the conservatives in this and even “mavericks” like John McCain and Olivia Snow said nothing. Not only did they not keep their fanatical right wing at bay , they set them loose on the population in the form of the Tea Party, capitalizing on every racist, sexist homophobic impulse shared by a small but noisy minority in this country.
Even if Obama wins this election in 2012, we need to do something like this to restore some equity in the power process.