Trying to define my disagreement with "my values or nothing" folks

[jpgray]

We're not going to be able to wholesale change the direction of this country in *one election*. The demand isn't there for radical change, so it is NOT going to happen.

Why isn't the demand there? Partly because the people aren't *yet* in grave danger--they aren't fighting for survival.

There is poverty here. It can be crushing. But the majority of Americans have their color TV, their love handles, their crappy job and their credit card debt, and will vote as lazily as they scan the headlines. We're no smarter than they are, but they sure are complacent, and they are not suffering on the scale that would bring real change--they are not fighting for survival.

If you want to look at a relatively rapid, and long overdue, shift of wealth in the country, it's easy to look at the New Deal. But as my avatar would tell you, the amount of suffering necessary to BRING this country to that point (the point of real socialist values becoming accepted in the capitalist's paradise) was extreme. Can you imagine whole swaths of a state's population loading up the family and possessions in a car and clogging the interstate to CA due to financial pressure these days? Our suffering isn't that acute yet, and because it isn't, *rapid* change will be difficult if not impossible to effect. The level of suffering needs to trump the innate vulnerability people have to being controlled, by the media or other means. That isn't happening yet.

We CAN do a more gradual change. This isn't as sexy as the rapid change, because the gradual change will piss you off and fail your values 80% of the time and you'll want to walk away from it. But the difference in my mind between those who expect a slog and those who expect rapid change in this situation is as follows: the former is willing to work very hard and thanklessly for any number of years towards the cause, without hope of seeing any results from his labor. The latter is more liable to talk loudly and make visible, dramatic gestures, asking for fulfillment of most of their values and nothing less the whole time, while taking their support elsewhere if that fulfillment isn't there.

People honestly seem to beleive that a real reformer, outsider or third party challenge to corporatist politics could survive in our system. I find this belief tremendously naive. The system won't accept a Kucinich or a Nader in high office. Everyone knows this--they say the media is against them, that the insider politicians on all sides play dirty tricks to obfuscate the true issues, etc.

No kidding!

So the system won't allow a perfect outsider candidate to succeed, yet some will only support such a candidate. Think about that for a moment. Do they expect the system to magically be fixed by some benevolent and fantastical fairness gnomes? If people want major leftist change in the country, and the system won't allow it, shouldn't the chief priority be FIXING that system? You can't do that by supporting a candidate, you do that by putting people in power to gradually swing the system back to where it ought to be. You certainly DON'T get the system fixed when power hungry right wingers have control of every flippin' branch of government.

Who can be placed in power? With the FUCKED up system we have, Democrats or Republicans. Who will at least fix SOME of what is wrong with the system? A few good Democrats. You know who is the best on these issues, and who is less good. But even those who are less good will maintain the level of unfairness the system already has. The Republicans will seek ever to increase it--witness Green Party persecution, media consolidation, Diebold, corporate pandering, etc.

So if anyone wants to one-liner me, go ahead, but this I think is at the root of my disagreement with those who refuse to support anyone to the right of Kucinich. You can vote however you want, and ideals are great, but I'm not satisfied with backing a candidate who holds my ideals, I want my ideals to have a chance of becoming national policy. That's why I will vote and work for Democrats I don't match very well with.

[nancyharris]

1. Although I take issue with much of what you have written

I am impressed by the candor, honesty and thoughtfulness of your essay.

I am one of those, who have for many years, tilted at the windmills of liberalism. And I have, over time seen many friends and colleagues “adjust” their political passion to the tempered resignation your post implies.

What strikes me most in your post is that you seem to have become one of those you decry yourself as “complacent” and “not yet ready to fight for survival”. You are self-admittedly willing to back a candidate with whom you “don’t match very well” holding out for the hope that a little progress is better than no progress at all. You propose sacrificing “want“for “hope”. It is my experience that in the end you will get neither.

I believe that the Kucinichs’ or Deans’ or Clarks’ of the world do far more to change the cultural landscape than a 100 Kerrys’ or Edwards’. All “change” develops because people of courage demand their voice to be heard. All “change” from civil rights, to women’s rights, to gay/lesbian rights, worker’s rights, to patient’s rights all exist due to the vision of a few. Even though all 3 might lose this nomination they have already left an indelible mark on the Democratic Party. And change, if it does come, will be as a result of their efforts. The Kerrys' and the Edwards’ will only see the light when the tide of political expediency shows them the way.

[jpgray]

2. Ack. I assumed this was down in the dungeon

Now I have it posted in two separate forums! :scared:

Of course I'm one of those people. So are you. We're both sitting here at 11:17 central time discussing real change on an internet board. :)

But you don't dispute my main points. Why is it that Clark, Dean or Kucinich is NOT likely to be the nominee? What is the chief problem? What course of action is a way to work towards solving this problem?

There is no "adjusting" of political passion. But working for small, imperfect changes while keeping you core values at heart seems to me better than outright rejecting such change.

edit: I also don't accept your premise that Dean or Clark is a big change from the status quo--they are much more acceptable in terms of politics and corporate policy than Kucinich or Sharpton.

[nancyharris]

9. Perhaps it should have stayed in the dungeon

The longer Kucinich, Dean or Clark are in the race the further left the Party will move. If one were to win the nomination the Party would “leap” to the left. That is precisely YOUR decision. If you decide that even though one (or more) may share your vision of the future yet you are unwilling to support them then YOU are dragging the Party to the right. Just who is it do you think IS the Democratic Party? IT’S YOU! You have the power of the vote. You are the one that can move your fellow Democrats to the left. But if you sit back and vote for the safe candidate, one that doesn’t share your values but is simply better than Bush then what have you gained? Just what is it you think will “change” if Kerry/Edwards win the nomination? What “change” happened when Gore won the nomination in 2000? Did the Party fight harder for the rights of workers? Did the Party become more environmentally friendly? Did they fight for universal healthcare? Did they fight harder for jobs? Did they fight hard to keep us from war? Well believe me, if you can, they will NEVER fight for those ideals as long as YOU don’t demand it of them. As long as YOU are willing to compromise your beliefs on the vague hope of victory they will do nothing for your ideals.

Taking a line from the header of your original post: If you don’t demand that candidates hold “my values” then you are sure to get “nothing”

[jpgray]

11. It's not that simple

I really wish it were. We don't choose who runs for office, we choose AMONG those who run for office. If I were supporting based on my heart alone, only Dennis would get my support. And we'd have to talk about his flag amendment vote.

So far, the candidates you label as progressive have not succeeded in capturing the nomination. Why? And how do we fix the problem? I don't pretend to have the answers here, I just have my own opinions.

[redqueen]

13. Why?

Have you not noticed that despite Kucinich having two 3rd pace showings (despite the media blackout) that the media STILL hates to even acknowledge his existence?

How do we fix it? Certainly not by continuing to send a message that we, here in the trenches, prefer the status quo. Why aren't dems fighting against media consolidation? Why aren't they fighting for jobs? Because you keep telling them with your votes that you really don't care!

How do we fix it? By electing, or at least supporting in the primaries, candidates who stand up for what we believe in!

[jpgray]

20. But the devil's advocate argument comes easily given your premise

What are the Dems taught when the leftist folks abandon them and vote third party or stay home? They are taught that Republicans get elected. In the success-oriented minds of politicians, that says "the country is moving right". What evidence do we have that the country has moved right? The media? Who controls the media? Corporations, and to a lesser extent their lapdog the FCC. How do corporations gain influence? By buying elected politicians. If more Republicans are elected, than they have that much more influence on the system, and will definitely try to skew it to their advantage. Evidence of this is ALL OVER the place.

So a scenario where leftist votes are removed from a Democrat, you run the risk of indirectly helping a Republican. If the left folks all abandoned the Democrats, either your scenario or mine would come to pass. They would either move right or left. Where have they moved so far? Did Nader in 2000 cause a leftward shift, or a rightward shift?

Where would the system be biased in the interim? As we see, it is biased HEAVILY to the right. Why? Because corporations have invested in the majority party, the Republicans, and are willing to shill for them because it is good for business. The Republicans are in a position where they can give a good quid pro quo, and so therefore the rightist bias comes.

So, how do you propose that abandoning moderate Democrats (not in primaries, in general elections) helps fix the system, or helps wake up the people? In my opinion, electing leftist Dems in the *primaries* is an extremely effective way to help move the country left. Unfortunately, no state apparently wants to do this. :(

[redqueen]

21. I didn't know you were specifically discussing the GE

In that case, I don't really know how to answer your question.

However it's very important to note that if elected Democrats will absolutely not work on election reform then that really shows you where their true allegiance is, and it's not with the people.

[jpgray]

24. You're right. Hopefully RichM will tell me how to fix that. :-) (nt)

[nancyharris]

15. Sorry to take so long to get back to you

edit:(this is in reply to post #11)

It is that simple; all you have to do is vote.

Are you actually saying that you intend to walk into your local polling booth and despite the fact that Congressman Kucinich’s stand on the issues is “closest” to your own, you nevertheless will vote for Senator Kerry (or Edwards) because somehow you think that by doing so the Party will gradually move closer to the left? I am completely baffled by this logic! You really think that voting for someone FARTHEST from your views will move the Democratic Party CLOSER to your views. Are you serious?

If you want the Party to fight for single-payer universal healthcare, want the Party to fight for worker’s rights, want the Party to fight against NAFTA and the WTO, want the Party to fight against needless foreign aggression, want the Party to support gay marriage, want the Party to insist on lowering the Defense budget and increasing the Education budget then WHY, OH, WHY do you plan on voting for someone who does not stand for those things? Because you are afraid he will not win? If he does not win, you won’t get those things anyway! But at least you will have, through your vote, indicated to the Democratic Party that YOU think these are the policies it should pursue.

[jpgray]

19. I will caucus for Kucinich in my state

If the nomination is pretty much Kerry's, or anyone else's..

[creativelcro]

3. My answer to that: I, and many others, will not vote for Kerry in GE

[Armstead]

4. Isn't 25 years long enough?

Nothing that is happening is new. This crap started in the mid-1970's, and has continued unabated since then.

We are screwed 25 ways from Sunday as a result.

And that saddest part is it DIDN't have to happen. If the political system (i.e. the Democratic Party) had stood up to it at any point in those 25 years, we would not be in as big a mess today.

And the Democratic Establishment will continue to let it happen unless some big changes are made and soon. Otehrwise it will be too late.

That's not "leftist" or being a purist about values. It doesn;t require a "hero." It's basic common sense.

We can continue to bow down to the corporate oligarchy ir we can start to return the couyntry to the people. It's that simple.

[jpgray]

5. This started 25 years ago? It started long before that. (nt)

[Armstead]

6. In its present form

It has always been a tussle. But there was a point in the later 1970's where it began to acelerate out of control.

The balance shifted far to the corporate right. Unfortunetaly, the usual opposing force disappeared, and the Democrat Establishment joined the GOP and the Corporate Elite.

It's been at least 25 years of silence and /or complicity. That's too long.

[jpgray]

7. I agree. How do we fix it? (nt)

[Armstead]

8. We start by acknowledging it

Dean opened the door a crack. Kucinich is saying it obviously.

They have laid out the problem and articulated what many people already know, eitehr in specific trms, or have undefined uneasiness about. Dean and Kucinich in particular also offered a different vision. Not a radical one, but a practical populist sense.

If, instead of matginalizing their views, the Democratic leadership would actually support the message of them and their supporters, it would help to raise awareness in the mainstream.

Actually, I think many in the mainstream are aware. But the system has gotten so distorted and rigid and corrupt people don't see politics as relavant. They don't feel like anyone is looking out for their interests.

Nor do they see any way to fix the problems because too many Democrayic politicians ignore the core issuest. So people become cynical.

This nomination process and election could have been about resurrecting that relevance and hope. But not if it's the same old same old.

[jpgray]

10. So what are we left with, disaster or Trojan horse?

A practical populist vision IS radical, as defined by the media. Either the people are not ready for these candidates, or the media are very effective in eliminating them. So what needs to change, again, is either the people's attitude toward politics, or the system.

Since various progressive candidates have not as yet energized people, something else needs to happen. In my opinion, as long as people are not finding it difficult to survive, we are perfectly happy to be complacent and entertained. We want to believe we are in a world where constant vigilance concerning our rights and freedoms is no longer necessary, and so when the media tell us that, we find it very seductive. But throw a financial disaster in the mix, and the belief system is shattered. I would rather NOT see this happen.

On the other hand, a candidate could always campaign from the corporatist center and once in office shift over to populist politics, rather than the other way around which we are too familiar with. This is about the least likely thing to happen and is the stuff dorm room conversation is made of, but if we got someone under the radar who seriously wanted to make a change, something interesting would happen. :)

[Armstead]

12. I don't think it has to be either

You set it up as eitehr/or. But a good solid, honest liberal/progressive populist message is not necessarily "radical" or even leftist or even "too liberal" or otherwise scary to the average person.

It only seems that way because of collective brainwashing, and lack of access to alternative sources of information and opinion in the media and the narrow-minded view of most careerist political strategists.

Om the contrary, if the Democrats actually supported real change, it would energize voters in a positive way, much more that being McDemocrats.

I don't believe the reason either Dean or Kucinich or Clark haven't caught on because of their actual messages. Rather it was a combination of otehr factors. Kucinich is either ignored by the media or treated as a flaky vanity candidate, rather than as the repesentative of a grass-roots movement.....Dean's personal image and message was alsao twisted beyind all reality by the Democrat Centrists and the media presstitutes.


And I have seen so many mainstream Democrats -- both online and in the real world who say: "I really agree with (Dean and/or Kucinich, but we have to worry about getting a candidate elected."...Sort of a variation of what you are saying.

What I am saying is that it doesn't have to be a scary message or one that is too radical for the average reasonal person to agree with. But it does have to be put out there.

[jpgray]

18. But these candidates are still rejected by the people or the system

How do you fix these things? You say the people actually like a liberal/progressive populist message. Then why do the candidates lose? The system? How do you fix the system when you can't elect a progressive/liberal populist candidate? If it's not the system, then it's the people. Why do the people disagree with liberal/populist candidates, and how do we fix that? No one has an answer. It's an endless circular argument.

[redqueen]

23. Not circular

The answer is to challenge anyone you hear saying "I like Kucinich but..."

Nobody will fight for what you believe in if you are constantly telling them that you don't really care about your own ideals enough to even vote for them in a primary election.

Outside this election, there's also voting third party locally. That is what I'm doing starting NOW.

[Atlant]

16. What Armstead said. (NT)

[RichM]

14. What you have written here is essentially a rationalization for

permanent resignation to the status quo. Your argument is basically that nothing can be done except supporting Democrats. And this term, for you, excludes the Kucinich type of Democrat - which is to say, the only Democrats you take seriously are status quo Democrats.

You write, We CAN do a more gradual change. This isn't as sexy as the rapid change... etc. This is just a smug attempt to ridicule those interested in real change, while adopting the unearned superior tone of one who has special wisdom about the process of historical change. Actually, a serious examination of the last 100 years would show that the US system is NOT really capable of gradual change. The only real social gains came NOT from passive reliance on gradual change -- they came from below, from angry determined people impatiently demanding meaningful and extremely near-term change. That is where the impetus for labor's gains in the 30's, for blacks in the 60's, for the antiwar movement in the 60's, etc, came from.

Furthermore, the quality of US society has been steadily deteriorating for about 25 years now, & we are now perched literally on the edge of the abyss. Relying on the innate capacity of the system for positive change, and on the efforts of status-quo Democrats, does not seem to have been a particularly successful strategy.

I wonder if you looked carefully at your last paragraph before posting it. You're saying in one phrase that you want your ideals "to have a chance of becoming national policy." But in phrases just before & after that, you eliminated all possibility that the candidate you backed would have any "ideals" to speak of.

[jpgray]

17. Ok RichM. Back it up. How do you effect your "real change"?

Go. I'm perfectly ready to hear it. :)

edit: I don't claim superior historical knowledge. Doubtless your "serious" examination of history is much more worthwhile than my own. ;-)

But at any rate, you read much into my post that isn't really there, and simplify my statements to the argument you're used to participating in--i.e. vote Dem and forget your values. What you seem to ignore is that one can hold very liberal values and still vote Democratic in the GE. Unless, of course, one is in favor of "heightening the contradictions" and the "ends justifies the means" logic of that position. I don't want the leftist shift to be the result of widespread suffering and anger. The political movements you mention are all results of those two things.

[Mairead]

22. Well, the first thing is to channel Woodie:

'But on the other side It didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!'

I.e., look beyond the given and don't accept anything at face value.

What we know for sure, because everyone has repeatedly experienced it, is that any change that benefits us will be resisted at the 100% level, so that in terms of agony a small improvement will cost us just as much as a large one. Which means it'll be much more efficient, and we'll therefore be more likely to succeed, if we don't make the mistake of trying to 'cross the chasm in two jumps'.

So the second thing is to not preemptively surrender.

[jpgray]

25. To clarify--I would only compromise in the GE

I would never do so in the primaries/caucuses. That's where a real chance exists to change the direciton within one party, whereas in a GE defeat, the status quo of the Dems can choose which lesson to infer, and so justify moving either left or right depending on their interpretation of the defeat. Such a problem was evidenced in 2000, where while Nader didn't "cost Gore the election", evidence was there to be had that a sizable amount of voters (many new voters) were there to be had on the left. Instead, if anything, the party moved right.

I agree that any change that benefits the general public will be resisted fully, but I disagree that there has to be a chasm to begin with. I don't yet subscribe to the notion that there *has* to be loads of popular anger and discontent for a progressive change. Maybe believing that change can happen without it is wishful thinking, however.

[Mairead]

28. "I disagree that there has to be a chasm to begin with"

Sorry for the lack of clarity; by 'chasm' I meant the gap between where we are and where we should be: the net amount of change we need to get.

I agree with you that having lots of people in the streets with (metaphorical) torches and pitchforks isn't a prerequisite for change. The Depression years were rather quiet and despairing rather than angry, but lots of change came from them. Many were willing to listen to their peers rather than the 'Authorities', who had both effed things up badly AND sold working people out. Which in turn led to FDR's election and the New Deal concessions as a way to save Capitalism.

To me, the single most useful thing we can do at this point is to go on saying the truth at every turn, relentlessly. Repetition helps. People understand things a little more completely each time. Well known teaching principle.

When you think of it, that's really DK's strategy as well. When we choose to go on rather than preemptively surrender, we're staying receptive in ourselves, and we're increasing the receptivity and understanding in others.

[Monte Carlo]

26. Politics isn't about YOUR values, it's about EVERYONE'S values.

You are but one tiny piece of the entire puzzle. That's it. Principles are important, but they will not necessarily bring you votes.

[nancyharris]

27. Politics may be about everyone’s values

But voting is about YOUR values.