'The liberal version of the Tea Party is just waiting to happen'

[Newsjock]

Source: The Stranger

The Democratic Party seems to be split into two very distinct factions right now: Those who want the government to do something about income inequality and those who believe that appeasing Wall Street is more important. Last night's passage of a spending bill in the House has kicked off a larger discussion about this divide within the party.

... And so the timing couldn't be any better for this announcement from Ready for Warren: Three hundred former Obama campaign staffers signed an open letter urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president.

... It looks to me as though the liberal version of the Tea Party is just waiting to happen. Instead of cutting taxes, their platform would call for taxing the rich and building the middle class. The most important question is, when will this discussion take place? Will it be early in the Democratic primaries of 2016, or will it happen all through 2015? How civil will the discussion be? Will these financially left-leaning Democrats find the leadership that they need? (Sorry, Occupy, but leaderless organizations just don't gain political traction.) Or is this just ultimately a puff of outrage that will disperse into an already highly charged political atmosphere? The cause is there. The momentum is there. Now all that energy just needs to be focused into a movement.

Read more: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/12/12/the-democratic-party-could-tear-itself-apart-over-income-inequality

[BlueCaliDem]

1. With the rising popularity of Senator Elizabeth Warren, if not now, when?

Now is the time to push for a more liberal Democratic Party now that we're painfully in the minority. Bolstered by justified anger and frustration from our left flank, the Democratic Party is now, more than any other time in recent history, poised to change for the better.

[RBInMaine]

56. Warren isn't running. She has said to time and again.

[BlueCaliDem]

65. I know. But it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind. :-)

That said, there's no denying that she can fire up and inspire supporters with her powerful speeches, just as President Obama had done in 2008 - one of the major reasons, I believe, that three hundreds former Obama staffers (and growing) have signed a petition for her to run.

[spin]

2. But everybody knows that Hillary will be coronated President. ...

Surely she couldn't be blindsided by another charismatic Democrat like she was when Obama won the Democratic primary in 2008. That would be like getting hit by lightning twice.

[polichick]

3. It's 20-some years overdue.

[genwah]

7. You're right. So it starts NOW. Today. With #OccupyWhatever, with #ItStopsNow, with#OURWalMart

and, yes, with Elizabeth Warren.

[UglyGreed]

18. +1000 N/T

[Doctor_J]

4. yeah, but without 1200 rradio station and with very little representation in dc and

no billionaires to buy things for us, prospects are bleak

[BillZBubb]

5. A meaningful liberal version of the tea party is unlikely.

First the practical reasons: No unlimited funding from billionaires and no 24/7 media propaganda arm.

Then then the philosophical reason: Liberals aren't sheep who ignore facts and live in a mythological world. A tea party needs sheep who will believe what they are told. TP cohesion is built on adherence to simplistic concepts. It doesn't matter if they are true or not, they must be believed.

Liberal beliefs are much more open to gray areas, that lessens the intensity and focus of the group.

[GreatGazoo]

6. but the TEA party was a well-finance creation designed to pull the more radical,

angry and disaffected conservatives back into the GOP. They got Porta Potties, sound permits and a lot of help from Fox News.

What kind of Koch-level billionaire is going to finance "wealth equality"?

[lostnfound]

23. Exactly -- who's going to fund it? Nt

[rhett o rick]

8. The Democratic Party must be purged of the Conservative/Corporatists that are against

everything Democrats stand for. The first step is to get it thru the heads of some that all Democrats are not good Democrats.
Those that think they are want their lives simplified. Let's take H. Clinton for instance. She is not the same as George Bush on all issues, but she was a big supporter of the most damaging decision this country has made. She not only supported the Republicans she promoted the Bush lies. In some ways she did more damage than Georgie. Democrats that didnt trust Georgie and little Dick Cheney, looked to her for guidance. She betrayed us. She sold the lies of WMD.

[2banon]

12. Never gonna happen. I think a new party, but that won't be allowed to happen either.

the political "parties" and "leadership" in this country are simply figure heads owned and controlled by an oligarchy who never ever concede their power. It's as simple as that.

It's a just a question when people will finally lift the woolen veil from their eyes and see things as they really are. It's what woo says, 'we're all captives" "we don't have a democracy".

it's past time folks here wake up and deal with that first, and then maybe we can create a genuine democracy. but I doubt this will take place in my life time.

[rhett o rick]

25. We can't abandon the Democratic Party. It's kick out the impostors or go down trying. nm

[YoungDemCA]

45. I like how you are calling for purges

It's more befitting of a totalitarian regime.

Carry on, though...

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. hilariously the purge of the Democratic Party is being called by the minority Left Leaning Indies!

[Scootaloo]

53. They're called "standards" and "principles."

A concept some here struggle with, it seems.

[2banon]

83. +++++++++!

[raouldukelives]

86. Yep. They use the old Alfred E. Neuman defense. nt

[rhett o rick]

66. Wow are you way off base. The Democratic Party leadership has been taken over

by Wall Street Conservatives. They are literally killing the lower classes. How is rectifying that "totalitarian"?

By the attitude of your post I assume you are ok with Wall Street control and care nothing about those among us that are struggling with losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, etc. The Wall Street Wing of our Party is working today to tighten the noose and you seem to be ok with that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Since when was support for dubious foreign wars out of line for Democrats?

Truman, Kennedy and Johnson all had involvement in Korea or Vietnam.

[rhett o rick]

67. So are you trying to say you approve of the continuous war in the middle east?

Our middle class is being strangled by the debts run up by the MIC.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. No, I'm saying the Democratic Party has never been an oasis of pure goodness

and this "take back the party" talk doesn't make sense. The Democratic party has never been a pure isolationist party without major figures advocating intervention abroad. Heck, look at what Warren said in 2012:

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senate hopeful in Massachusetts, came under fire for a hawkish statement on Iran that contradicts intelligence assertions by senior U.S. defense officials.

Warren's campaign website features a policy statement declaring that "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons" and "Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world."

The statement continues, "The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch."

Warren's claim that "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons" is especially notable because it contradicts public statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as reported intelligence findings of the U.S. and Israeli governments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/elizabeth-warren-iran-bob-kerrey_n_1449926.html?ref=politics

After criticism about that, she dialled the rhetoric down a bit. But it shows that all kinds of Democrats are aggressive in foreign policy.

[rhett o rick]

74. I guess I am missing your point. Are you suggesting we let the Wall Street/Neocon Wing of the Party

take over completely? The fact that the Party has never been perfect shouldn't decrease our efforts to make the Party represent the people instead of Wall Street and the Neocons. Are you saying that things aren't so bad that we can relax and just go with it?

[jberryhill]

76. the point seems to be related to your use of this phrase...

"everything Democrats stand for" in relation to a supposed principle of not engaging in foreign military adventures. While I certainly oppose war, I wouldn't say that my belief on that score is some sort of historical core principle of the Democratic Party. Every Democratic president since Wilson has taken this country to war abroad. Every. Single. One.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Thank you - yes, that was what I was saying

I also suspect that there are enough Democratic voters that think that way that they couldn't be pushed out of the party without it becoming an opposition-only party at the national level, for many decades.

[BootinUp]

80. Carter too?

Which war would that have been?

[2banon]

85. crickets..

to your question obviously the poster had forgotten Carter was the exception, or something else.

In any event, You're correct Carter did not engage in Warfare to the best of my knowledge/memory..

[rhett o rick]

87. Not sure of your point. Just because a Democrat does it doesn't make it a Democratic principle.

The only test required to be called a Democrat is that you ask to be called a Democrat. One day Arlen Specter decided to become a Democrat and bingo-bango he could call himself a Democrat from that day forward. No one ask if he would stop being a conservative asshole.

[sabrina 1]

9. OWS wasn't trying to 'gain political traction'. They were trying to, and succeeded

in exposing the corruption on Wall St.

I don't know why even people who should be more informed, continue to make false claims like that.

OWS more than exceeded its original goals which were, to stay on the streets for at most, two weeks in ONE city to draw attention to the Wall St Crimes that were destroying this country.

That was it. Not to go the old way of demonstrating for a day, then going home.

Since they are still operating all over the country, it is safe to say they far exceeded those goals, none of which was for THEM to 'gain political traction'.

[CTyankee]

11. You are right. OWS succeeded by bringing the issue of income inequality into focus.

Today we are talking about income inequality because of OWS.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Huh? Sabrina said nothing about income inequality

Her post was about corruption on Wall Street.

[CTyankee]

61. Well, there's the 99% and the 1% idea...

wasn't that part of the OWS messaging?

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. Well, I thought that, but Sabrina said it was about Wall St. corruption

The 99%/1% idea seems political to me (after all, loads of the 1% have got rich with nothing to do with Wall St. corruption), but Sabrina is insisting that wasn't the purpose of OWS.

[CTyankee]

64. My take-away was different from Sabrina's I guess. But it was a lot of others take away, too...

but it's all part of one big scheme don't you think?

[Maedhros]

13. In one sense, OWS evolved in an opposite direction to the Tea Party.

OWS refused to be co-opted by entrenched partisan forces. This is why there is so much criticism of OWS from Democratic partisans: they wanted OWS to serve as a publicity stunt for establishment Democratic policies, and OWS didn't play along.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. bingo!

[justabob]

20. +1 nt

[brooklynite]

29. AND OWS chose to drop out of the political process, in favor of creating its own mini-societies...

...while the Tea Party engaged in the political process and got a bushelful of its candidates selected.

Who had more success?

[sabrina 1]

33. Here we go AGAIN. To 'drop out of the political process' you have to have

had that as a goal to begin with.

OWS was NEVER in the political process, in fact that would have been the antithesis of what the movement IS all about, because although you appear not to know, it has not only not gone away, it is thriving around the world.

The Goal of OWS was to RAISE AWARENESS about Wall St Corruption and how it has adversely affected practically every aspect of the lives of the American people.

It reached that goal long ago,.

Anyone who claims that OWS didn't get political, has ZERO Understanding of what OWS is all about.

Here's what they intended, when they took to the streets in NYC.

One - two weeks at most. One city. The goal, to awaken the public to the role Wall St has played in the lives of every American, the corruption, the infiltration of our political system etc.

The DELIBERATELY DID NOT WANT TO BE POLITICAL!! For a very good reason!

So to even try to equate that Social Justice Movement with a political party only shows how little people understand about it.

OWS accomplished its goal in the first week in NY. And then far exceeded it when cities across the nation and the world 'GOT THE MESSAGE' because it was there, simmering under the surface and only needed it to be put into words and actions.

[brooklynite]

38. What was the purpose of raising awareness...if not to address the issues you're aware of?

[sabrina 1]

48. I'll make it as simple as I can. It is a Social Justice Movement.

Not a political party.

Think about other Social Justice Movements and why they came about.

OWS was extremely good at what they did.

Now they have moved on to the next phase, as all Social Justice Movements do.

The Government is meant to serve the people. When it stops doing that, the people rise up in way or another.

If the Government is deaf to the people's grievances, the movement will only grow.

[rhett o rick]

27. Thank you for saying that. It's exactly what I think. OWS was a great success.

Their actions caught on quickly, not only in this country, but around the world. They proved there was a simmering undercurrent ready to revolt. They proved that the Oligarchs were afraid of them, of us, thus the extreme reaction. They also drew out those among us that sympathize with the Oligarchs. Thanks for the post.

[randome]

73. You always bring up goals after the fact.

Now that Occupy is a mere shadow of its former strength, you like to pretend that a leaderless organization had 'goals', which is a clear dichotomy and an exercise in denial.

What do you think of Elizabeth Warren? Is she a leader? Do you think she will succeed? How could that be possible since according to you, a leaderless organization is something to be admired?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

79. You never like that Social Justice Movement. Why is a mystery. Though

your reference to Warren in the same category as a Social Justice Movement, which is still going strong btw, on to the next phase, tells me that for some reason you cannot tell the difference between a Social Justice Movement, now Global, and a Political Party.

If you need help, though I know I tried before, I'd be happy to try again to explain it to you.

OWS reached the goals they had set when they succeeded in staying at Zuccotti Park WAY longer then the original plan.

They far exceeded their goals, and I know I have explained this to you before, when cities across the country and the world, joined them.

That was never the plan, it seemed such a thing would have been impossible. But there it was, unimaginable success demonstrating the need for this movement which was and is far greater than anyone knew.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. There is much afoot, happening under the radar.

Remember that the real impetus for all of this New Wave was Occupy Wall Street. It was there that the metaphor of the 99% was born, it was there that the debate started to shift from deficits to inequality. In some respects, Liz rode that crest into the Senate.

The next two years will be very interesting. Liz doesn't have to run to win. By "win" I mean bring about meaningful change in the economic footing of the nation. All she has to do is stay on course, keep both riding and helping to energize the wave, showing the public what's going on and maintaining the focus on inequality.

That is, the Presidency is not the only route for her to accomplish her purposes. It really helps her get some media attention directed at her statements, though. The non-campaign keeps everyone nervous & gets her message out.

The Big Guys really don't want inequality to be the focus of the 2016 elections.

So, yeah, Go Liz.

[Scuba]

16. Occupy deserves enormous credit for changing the national conversation from the debt to inequality.

[randome]

68. They deserve 'credit' for squandering the opportunity to get things done, too.

As the article states, leaderless organizations do not a revolution make.

Funny, isn't it, how the die-hard believers of Occupy believe that not having a leader is a smart 'move' (or lack of one), yet lust after (deservedly so) Elizabeth Warren to lead us out of the wilderness.

The disconnect is astonishing. Yet things are starting to change, I think, because of leaders like Elizabeth Warren.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

75. Occupy continues to get good things done, and not naming a leader denied the right a target ...

'You Are Not a Loan': Rolling Jubilee Abolishes Millions in Student Debt

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/17/you-are-not-loan-rolling-jubilee-abolishes-millions-student-debt




But good try for a smear anyway.

[Wounded Bear]

17. I actually like her in the Senate...

and I believe she would be far more effective in achieving some kind of meaningful change. The Obama years taught me an important lesson: How easy it is to neutralize/hamstring a Presidential administration, even for the 'minority' party.

If Liz runs, I'll vote for her. But I like her where she is, carrying the torch for Teddy.

[zappaman]

37. Me too.

I think she can do far more good there and so far, is doing great!

[Fumesucker]

62. It's easy for Republicans to neutralize a Democratic administration

The other way around not so much.

[RBInMaine]

55. Occupy was a dismal FAILURE and Warren isn't running. She has said so time and again.

Occupy refused to organize into a real political movement. Instead they acted goofy and messed parks just pissing people off in the end. Their motives were right and noble, but if you don't organize into a real, longterm, non-goofy political movement, then you founder and dissolve. That is just what happened with Occupy. Nice try, bye bye.

Warren isn't running. End the delusion.

[Scuba]

14. Yet a DUer wrote just today that running for President would make EW a quitter just like Sarah.

[rhett o rick]

28. I hope you can see the difference. Those that fear her running will say about anything. nm

[frylock]

40. surely they feel the same about Obama..

right?

[AzDar]

15. Couldn't agree more...

[kentuck]

21. The best thing that could ever happen to the Democratic Party.

If they can keep them in the caucus?

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

[LittleBlue]

24. I'm ready for it

Show me where to sign up.

[True Blue Door]

26. The Tea Party is what it is because conservatives can't think for themselves and don't try.

But progressives are incapable of pursuing a permanent common cause. No matter how distilled the movement becomes, there are always some who are closer to the establishment, and some who are more radical, and the radical side tends to constantly flake off from movements that become politically relevant.

In fact, the more relevant it becomes, the more they see it as "selling out" and desperately want to break away from it - thus depriving it of their energy, and depriving themselves of its legitimacy and practical resources. And no matter how often this pattern is repeated, they never learn from it.

If this were not the case, rebuilding and surpassing the New Deal in this country would be trivially easy. If everyone on the left would just agree that everyone who wants to move in the same direction is on the same side regardless of their ambitiousness, the right has nothing that could possibly compete with that.

[YoungDemCA]

46. Well said. The Democratic Party is deeply divided...

...which Republicans exploit, of course.

[Bjorn Against]

30. The "liberal version of the Tea Party" has been around a whole lot longer than the Tea Party

It is called the labor movement, and while our corporate media likes to pretend it doesn't exist it has been fighting against the Tea Party since long before they started calling themselves the Tea Party.

[Brother Buzz]

31. Herding cats and nailing Jell-O to a tree is easier than organizing progressives

We need to find a community organizer that will stay bought. I'm just saying.

[blkmusclmachine]

32. If it hasn't congealed by now, I fear it never will...

[Aldo Leopold]

34. I feel the same way. Have been for a while now.

[Reter]

35. You can only count me in if they call it the Coffee Party

[jimlup]

36. Only there is a critical difference....

the tea party is just plain stupid. A liberal "version" that was just as stupid wouldn't be particularly helpful though I doubt it would be possible for a liberal version that stupid to develop. Tea Partiers are just on the edge of drooling stupid.

[DeSwiss]

39. K&R

- Okay, but liberal teabags have to be made with Chamomile and Rosehips!

K&R

[Mr.Bill]

41. I really like Elizabeth Warren and would vote for her

but let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

What will she say when questioned about what experience she has with foreign policy or her ability to be commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world? You know she will be attacked in these areas.

[kentuck]

42. The Sweet Tea Party.

[DemandsRedPill]

43. when pigs fly

Judging from the miserable performance so far in just confronting the current Democratic party in a forceful and demanding manner on a local level the odds of a competing party no matter its name is slim to none.

Take over your own local Democratic party?
Nah!
Having too much fun just complaining

The Tea Party was made up out of 'hole cloth' by billionaires funding rallies of essentially the 'unwashed' of limited IQ that would make a bunch of noise and appear to be a force to be reckoned with far in excess of its true powers.

So far all I see from those who propose a 'liberal tea party' are those folks who don't have enough spine to speak truth to power for fear of offending someone or even put forth an effort to be the change they want to see. You know. Folks who identify with the word liberal

The reality of unicorns and a real third party effort revealed

[randome]

69. The conservative members of the Democratic party are simply afraid of losing elections.

They need to be reassured, not lambasted, until they finally come on board with proposed changes. They need to see there is more of a downside for capitulation than in standing up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Snarkoleptic]

44. If you peel back the window dressing, it looks a lot like a class war.

(and we're losing...BIG TIME)

[wyldwolf]

47. Hang on, let me finish popping my popcorn and putting ice in my cup...

OK, please proceed. Should be quite entertaining.

[geek tragedy]

49. Simple-minded hooey.

"There are Democrats who want the best deal possible, and there are those who engage in magical thinking" would be a more accurate way of putting it.

[steve2470]

51. +1 nt

[Cha]

50. The opposite of save the Billionaires and Destroy the Planet doing it. yeah, I like it.

thanks Newsjock

[Quantess]

54. Can we get the Koch brothers to fund our "grassroots" movement?

Money would help. Thanks.

[Recursion]

57. Not really. 40% of the US call themselves conservative, and 20% call themselves liberal

With 40% calling themselves moderate. Even within the Democratic party self-identified moderates and conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals (D self-identification is roughly 40% "liberal", 40% "moderate", and 20% "conservative", whereas within the GOP it's 60% conservative, 30% moderate, and 10% liberal).

The numbers just aren't there for us to do on the left what the right does. Sorry.

[baldguy]

58. Sorry, I can't see the Tea Party as something Democrats should want to emulate.

The mindless extremism, the fascism, the arrogant stupidity, and the general hatred for America & Americans should be enough to dissuade any rational person from copying it.

[maced666]

70. Yep - and, you just described Occupy Wall Street to the letter.

But for the most part progressives steer clear of 'arrogant stupidity' so I don't see a clean copy of tea party coming anytime soon.

[Cosmic Kitten]

77. You confuse FORM with CONTENT

The Tee Party "success" was in building
a grassroots "stable", or "farm league"
from which to groom candidates while
gaining control of local politics, school boards etc.
THAT is the FORM which the Left needs to emulate

Their CONTENT, the mindless extremism, the fascism...
was simply playing to their base.
Which are people who are fearful and irrational.
The Left can insert CONTENT that supports it's own values.

NONE of this requires millions in "astro-turf" dollars.
It doesn't require a 1000 radio or teevee stations.
Forget traditional media which is a dinosaur...
We have SOCIAL MEDIA.

[LiberalElite]

71. Ain't no "puff" of outrage here:

[Number23]

81. K&R I'd be very interested to see if this happens or if this is just more chattering

[Orsino]

82. Waiting for some rich people to endow and televise it?

That's why it's still waiting.

[MrScorpio]

84. I'll believe it when I see it

And I'll only support it if they do the right thing.

[adirondacker]

88. It already has. It's called the third way, DLC, new dem etc. Both funded by the Kochs. nt