Either/Or Nonsense. I'm fed up with False Choices. Ideals are pragmatic.

[Armstead]

I think of myself as a moderate progressive. That means I'm enough of an old fart to be pragmatic about the prospects for sweeping change, but still idealistic enough to believe that real healthy change is both NECESSARY and POSSIBLE.

I don't count on any "socialist revolution," but I do believe if we could just get back to the political balance we had before the shit hit the fan in the 1970's and 80's the US could be steered back on a much healthier and more democratic course....After that we can debate socialism and how "far left" it is possible to go.

The problem is that in the f****d up political culture of today, even that modest goal is branded as too radical, "too far left," unrealistic, utopian, purist, too uncomprimising, naive, "too liberal," and all of the otehr nonsense thrown about.

It seemed in the beginning like this primary would finally bring the fresh air that is needed. Open the windows and clear out the stale air. Our side of the spectrum seemed to be invigorated by anger both at Bush and at the bi-partisan Corporate Oligarchy.

So a lot of fussing and fightin', but it seemed to be pushing in the right direction, and create enough of a broadly-based concensus that walked that balance between what the progressive and the centrists both want.

But instead, it seems we're plummeting back top the same old same old. The same old "Even though we all really like this guy, we have to vote for that guy. THEN we can change things later..." Or it's variation, "Even though you don't like this guy and object to more of the same, you're a jerk if you complain."

This creates a false dichotomy -- ONCE AGAIN. The only way to win is to sell out. To nip around the edges, while avoiding the whole subject of what we all know is really the problem.

Once again we fail to recognize that the Republicans succeeded for the opposite reason the Democrats have failed. Beginning with Reagan, they presented a core set of principles and fought for them. They set the terms and they presented the clear alternatives.

This year, Democrats have a chance to do the same thing, from the liberal/progressive side. Times have gotten bad enough that both the liberal "base" and those precious "swing voters" would be receptive.

But the Democratic Establishment once again resisted. Using the media, they successfully portrayed Dean, a very moderate liberal who at least talked about the real problems, as a wild eyed radical. They totally ignored a real progressive liberal, Kucinich, so that he could not be taken seriously as a contender.

Yes primaries are hardball. But it sure seems that if Democrats at least gave enough support to Dean and Kucinich to legitimize the movement they represent, it would have been a whole different ballgame.

I'll ultimately be a good little ABB'er too, because I want those GOP bastids out of the White House so bad I can taste it. But once again, it is with a sour taste in the mouth and the frustration of knowing that once again we have blown an opportunity to make politics really relevant and positive, once again.

[ibegurpard]

1. Except for the last paragraph

I agree with you so much it hurts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. That's why I'm so happy that we finally have a chance to elect

a real liberal to the White House.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. You're a Kucinich supporter now?

Because he's the only real liberal I see still in this race - albeit ignored by the media.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. You're welcome to your opinion even if it has no relation to reality

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. Reality is

...that Kerry has consistently voted to support the Bush Criminal Empire's agenda over the last three years. Reality is that Kerry's foreign policy adviser is a PNAC signator. Care to explain how any of that is "liberal"?

[kiahzero]

3. In case you haven't noticed,

The Dems don't control the media. And, from what I've seen, the DLC didn't start attacking Dean until after he claimed that he was the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

[Armstead]

6. The Elite feed the media

And in addition to attacking Dean, they attacked his supporters, branding them as leftist outcasts that the Democratic Party doesn't need.

The media reflects the message the Democratic strategists, backers and politicians send out. Hence, long before his famous "gaffes," Dean (a many-times elected moderate governor) was branded as unelectable by the politicos and pundits.

And they don't even acknowledge Kucinich and his supporters exist.

[janx]

7. That was very telling, in fact.

Those were the words that Dean used to fire up the party, kiahzero. Those were the words that will ultimately get Bush out of the White House.

And still the insider D.C. Dems complain...

[kiahzero]

12. But they weren't true

Dean was as much a moderate as those he campaigned against. Wellstone was the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party"... Dean just plagiarized his words.

[janx]

22. You missed Dean's point. He was using Wellstone's words

deliberately, but it wasn't about ideology or where he happened to situate himself on the sliding scale. It was about returning the power to the American people, about restoring the democratic process.

He did so very well.

[MuseRider]

30. I had not

thought about it that way, that Dean was using those words for another purpose. Still, he would not have been my candidate but I have to say that what he is doing now has earned more respect from me (and others) than he ever got while running. Perhaps he will be with us for a lot longer than I ever anticipated. That is a good thing. To be clear, this was meant as a compliment, not a dis on Dean.

[janx]

34. Yes, I didn't misunderstand.

And yes, I think he'll be very much around. :hi:

[edzontar]

4. Thanks for this reasonable statement of principle.

I hope that all the responses will be equally thoughtful and civil, but somehow I do not expect that will be the case.

[unfrigginreal]

5. Thanks

You'll probably get a bunch of thank you replies from those that only absorbed the last paragraph of your post. I want to thank you for the entire post.

[snoochie]

8. My thoughts exactly - what a wasted opportunity

And not only will we probably not get another golden opportuinity such as this... if we win, the inevitable catastrophe that is "Iraqization" will fall on the Democrat. Add this to us not getting the fairness doctrine or anything like it back, and it's like a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

[revcarol]

9. I have been waiting 42 years for the Dems to be Dems.

Always some excuse: "get our guy in, THEN we will give you...chibbles."

"Vote for us because we are less bad."

I want some good old fashioned CLARITY AND BACKBONE AND COMMITTMENT TO ORDINARY PEOPLE, AND NOT CORPORATIONS!!I want THE U. S. TO BE FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE IN THE WORLD. I want MY CIVIL RIGHTS BACK(but,no, we just gotta tweak the Patriot Act a bit)!!DEMS MUST COMMITT TO ORDINARY PEOPLE AND THEIR NEEDS AGAIN.

And the DLC practically saying that Kucinich is Rummy's twin??!!:wtf:

I am ashamed of my party. And the ONLY way we can proceed is by a MASSIVE PROTEST VOTE for KUCINICH in the remaining primaries.

[Armstead]

14. "Chibbles"?

Is that like kibbles?

[revcarol]

28. No, chibbles are crumbs.

Kibbles are larger than crumbs.

We get crumbs.

[lovedems]

10. I was watching Clinton's former cheif of staff on Charlie Rose last night

John Podesta. He said the republicans are responsible for the shift to the right because they have had 30 of experience. He states the way they were able to do this was by investing millions of dollars in think tanks (cato, heritage foundation, etc) to help them define the direction they wanted to go. Then, they invested millions in media to air that message.

He states that it will take time to shift the country back in the direction we need to go and he is working dilligently on doing just that with his Center for American Progress. It is going to be an uphill battle, but it is a battle that needs to be fought and I think we need all the voices we can get in order to shift the country into heading in the right direction. Anyone who thinks this is going to happen overnight, after 30 years of republicans controlling the message I think are fooling themselves.

[Armstead]

19. I disagree

Talk is cheap, but it's also the way things get set in motion.

And there has been an "underground" progressive movement trying to push the ball back towards the center (the real center not the DLC center). So this is not starting from scratch.

But the Democratic establishments has to start paying attention to more than the high priced consultants and lobbyists and corporate pundits for it to move any further.

[lovedems]

27. Talk is cheap, but terrible ideas are cheaper

and somehow the conservatives, conservative think tanks and alot of money have convinced alot of people in this country that their ideas and their direction are what's right for the country. If we look at this like a pendulum, we have to move back to the center and get away from this trend of moving more and more to the right. What the "center" is, is obviously open to debate but I will take any direction that takes us away from slowly dipping to the right. The "underground" progressive movement I don't deny but fighting the powers that be require money and if the DLC (as you put it) are trying to get us back to a center, I find it a step in the right direction because I would rather go to the DLC center than the christian conservative right.

[Armstead]

31. Social issues and Economic Power Issues

By the center I was referring to a position where the corporate sector is forced into a position of balance with other values and interests, rather than the absolute supremacy they have achieved over the last 30 years. That's an issue of political and economic power.

The Democrats and DLC are obviously better on the social issues. But part of the problem is that by emphasizing that to the eclusion of the Money and Power issues, they have allowed the GOP to use those as wedge isuess.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. That's one reason I dislike the DLC/Clinton style Dems

Did he say it was the repubs fault alone or did he concede that our party shares greatly in that blame? Dems by god LET the repubs define the debate- and we're still doing it today.

The less willing the party is to stand up for Democratic values, the more we lose control over the issues. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans agree with us when they are asked issue specific questions- indeed, Americans are far more liberal than they recognize. So why do so many identify with the repubs? Because we've let them be co-opted by refusing to engage in the debate.

Media consolidation/ownership is a factor, but really only in recent years. In the early 90s when we Dems became inverterbrates, the media was still decent, even if not ideal. That's just another excuse for people who refuse to look in the mirror when we are talking about the problems facing the country. The Dem party is certainly not blameless. As I've said before, until we recognize that there is a problem...

[lovedems]

33. I hear what you are saying but we need to be realistic too.

I don't know that I agree that the dems LET the republicans define the debate. We may have had a democratic WH but during Clinton's 2nd term the congress was controlled by scandal loving, greedy, unethical republicans. Yes, they were defining the debate but look how they were defining it...they were fabricating scandals, they were investigating everything under the sun where Clinton and his administration were concerned. How in the heck do you fight that? They were successful in defining the debate by taking the "moral high road" which is laughable, but they had done so much to discredit the Clinton's and anyone associated with them that when Clinton tried to fight it, they just said he was liar. And people believed it. I still listen to republicans talk about how bad Clinton was. It looks like you say that too.

[RichM]

11. I'd have liked to see the primary season develop like this: instead of

everyone quickly choosing a candidate & beginning to slash away at the choices of others, there should first have been a discussion of principles. Effort should have been directed at first arriving at a set of core issues, and positions on these issues -- then determining who best matched these positions. The process would then have been centered on substance & not on personality and image.

For example: Anti-war or not? Cut defense spending or not? Free trade or not? Universal health care or not?

The entire discussion of who was "electable" should never have happened. It's a mark of shame and failure that candidate image (this one's a Southerner; that one is handsome; this one pounds his chest about his military record, etc) was ever accorded such primacy in the discussion.

This primary season has proven that Democrats, as a group, are unable to first decide on principles, then to courageously fight for those principles. Rather, their thinking is fear-driven, & dominated almost entirely by low-quality marketing concepts like "image" and "electability."

[janx]

15. Yeah. The cramming together, or "front loading" of the

primaries has contributed to a real lack of voters' knowledge of policy and substance.

In this way, it has also contributed to a coat-tails effect that is likely to make the Dem fight much harder come November.

[snoochie]

16. no moral center

God help me, I'm starting to think they have a point.

[Armstead]

17. Well I think we're stuck with that but you're right

Rather then being able to bring out Kucinich's message into the dialogue, it ends up being about his "funny ears."

In today's world, unfortunately, we have to deal with those "electability" issues, and the process is rigged to that individuals become representative of positions.

But even in that imperfect situation, I believe it would have been possible to focus on the ideas as well as the shape of the jaw. But once again the marketeers ran the show, and we fell in line by mixing up messges with messengers.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. I'm almost COMPLETELY in agreement with this statement

Where it gets dicey is that there are SO many interests under the mantle..not special interests which has simply turned in an ad hominem smear but valid interests all mixing in some portions and colliding with others...a great example would be that we favor worker's rights and the right to organize, but we also favor environmental sensibilities such as clean air and water...so there we were with our two issues we favor pitting the Sierra Club against the UAW with CAFE standards.

[ulysses]

29. that's classic triangulation, though.

Don't forget the third party in that equation, which is also the one with the power to make the decisions - auto company execs and the politicians they pay so very much to lease. They're the ones who benefit from a labor/enviro split.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. Oh I agree but let's parse how they do it

It isn't so much that the execs support or purchase the politicians, they can get MANY MORE VOTES from the unions.

The party says "We are aiming for CAFE standards to increase fuel efficiency."

The Sierra Club says, "We support this and will encourage our members to contact you."

The execs ALWAYS say,"It will be an economic disaster. We can't do it by the time you want us to, we can't POSSIBLY comply with such unreasonable goals, and it will cost WAY TOO MUCH to do this by then. WE will HAVE TO LAY OFF more employees."

The UNIONS say, "Well we have to look out for the interests of our workers who have seen far too many plant closures, therefore we don't support this."

I am NOT saying there aren't viable solution but that scenario only represents the interests of those on OUR side of the aisle.

[Armstead]

35. I believe it's possible to create win/win situations

Not easy but possible.

For example, environmentalism creates jobs. Suppose instead of ANWAR, the Democrats pushed for a "moon landing" type project to push development of wind power and solar power and more environmentally-friendly cars.

With some hard gargaining, unions could perhaps get behind such a project as a jobs-creation initiative too. (And a lot of their workers would probably rather be building wind-farms in the Lower 48 than freezing their butts off in Alaska ;-). A bit of liberal "carrots and sticks" would probably also get corporations on board too.

I realize some of that has been proposed, but that's the kind of bridge-building that could be part of a real progressive populist agenda.

P.S. added after your simultaneous post. That's where we need to be more kick ass. When corporate excutives whine and complain about lost jobs and "competativeness" and their otehr usual bag of tricks, we shouild be calling them out on it loudly and clearly.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. Fine but you need to get that through a hostile congress

comprised mostly of your enemies.

Having sat in on CLOSED door policy meetings in my own state where all the various groups interested practically come to blows, I know how hard it is to foster a bargain that works, includes the concerns of everyone and still gets one re-elected. The issue of being RE-ELLECTED is VERY important and undermined by the OUTSIDER strategy because the person that SAT there when the seal was hammered out KNOWS there may have been an intention to REVISIT the issue if it turned out NOT to be workable, but then they lose their seat and the person taking their place has NO LEGISLATIVE memory of how the deal was struck, the bargains involved and the promises to revisit the issue.

[Armstead]

40. That's always inevitable

That's where fighting for the hearts and minds of the public comes in.

I know how hard bargains are too, as an observer in my job on the negotiations behind such things.

I see it as a chicken-and-egg thing.

The tone of the public political debate sets a lot of the framework for these behind-the-scenes things. If the Corporate Elite and GOP also sets the terms of the larger political debate, then they have the upper hand behind the scenes. And they are able to get away with things that are against the public interest.

But if they know the public is watching, and that the progressive position has the political clout, that ultimately either gives our side the upper hand, or at least levels the playing field.

But when the public representatives on our side don't publicly expose the lies and misrepresentations of the GOP/Corporate Bosses, then no one is really challemging them with clout.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. On the rank and file issues of the day, I really don't see the public

paying very much attention.

When they are they get sucked in by soundbites moreso than actual policy as people do here as well.

Changing the public perception does take time....what I see are people living in a public perception that took 30 years to develop and infect demanding instant realization.

I know we disagree on some aspects of this and agree on others...my point is I see the EITHER/OR paradigm and hostages being waged by every camp on every side of the issues.

[Armstead]

44. I started the thread by making the same point

"I know we disagree on some aspects of this and agree on others...my point is I see the EITHER/OR paradigm and hostages being waged by every camp on every side of the issues."

I agree that there is eitehr/or on all sides. That's why I said that ultimately I will be ABB, even if Pluto the Pooch gets nominated.

But the either/or I'm talking about is the position that we have to once again follow the same path yet again because that's the "only" way to win.

But I do think the "centrist" or more conservative elements are seeing a false dichotomy themselves. They honestly believe that there are no other options.

That is why I found the Dean experience so frustrating (his personal foibles aside). In many ways he was exactly what the centrists have been telling the "left" to do. Find a bridge candidate who was basically mainstream and moderate, but who also addressed the basic issues progressives are concerned about.

But instead of being given a fair shake, he got demonized and misrepresented. He was called a leftist radical. And the Democrats said he was prone to "gaffes" whenever he said something as true and innocuous as a line acknowledging that we're really not safer with Sadaam captured (in a long basically moderate speech on foreign policy).

It's not either "sell out" or be "pure and lose." There are many gradations possible between those poles. But we all seem to be hardening the artieries once again, by getting stuck in rigid corners and false dichotomies yet again.

Just my opinion, of course.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. Fine but I see Dean's loss as being multifactorial

I think he benefited early from very positive press and from being the early starter when nobody was campaigning.

While the media has taken its swipes at every one of the candidates, Dean had the most capital to start with and some of his own missteps and naivete contributed to his demise. I am SORRY the SCREAM speech was played 700 times because it MASKED Dean's actual misstep that night which was to take one loss and then respond to his faithful as though he were the underdog in the campaign when in fact, he had lost one state and was surprised by his own loss given the resources he had committed. While the Osama ad was DIRTY politics (but I still object to many of the claims that associate certain candidates with this given that Kerry CALLED for the ads to be pulled) they DID take a guy down that spent FAR more than them with $650,000. That is INSTRUCTIVE of how ugly the GE will be. Dean DIDN'T or COULDN'T overcome it. That is instructive of HIS own viability as a candidate.

Regarding the Saddam statement, we already saw the "AL GOre discovered Love Canal" statement and KNOW how that one works. Dean thought his response out poorly when he could have instead pointe to the short term and long term COSTS of the war/ and the fact that Saddam was CONTAINED rather than make a statement that set himself up...he DID have AL Gore's sponsorship and guidance..it was HIS lesson to learn.


I don't see the rigid arteries setting in. The Democrats had 9 people on the stage raising and answering to a VARIETY of issues. People who are ANTI-NAFTA are seeing this issue AIRED. They can call that a WIN. People who were ANTI-WAR are seeing this issue AIRED. They can count THAT as a win. People who are ANTI-COPORATE ARE indeed seeing this issue AIRED. They can count that as a win.

Overall, but for Dean's loss and tying all future messianic deliverances to him, I think the Democratic platform has been served by ALL who participated and SEE an opening for progressives to NOT end up being marginalized as much as they have been in recent years. Their delegates are heading to the convention and will HAVE latitude in setting the platform and agenda.

It's up to them to choose their path at this point. Since I include myself in that group in regards to domestic labor rights, I'm gonna continue to play the game from within with the cards I am dealt and do my bitching via the standard channels...activism, contribution, cancassing and the like.

[Ramsey]

18. Indeed

I posted part of this in another thread, but I think it fits in this one as well:

Democratic issues are, or should be, the progressive values that champion the right of every person to a decent living, health care, education and individual rights, in contradistinction to the Darwinian, winner-takes-all policies of the right wing (mixed in with their desire to legislate an evangelical christian "morality").

The problem has been for some time that the Democratic Party is paralyzed with fear and inactivity in the face of an better organized and better funded Republican Party that has been more effective at getting its message out. They attract support, as we all know, by lying to people. Every single policy of the Bush administration, from "Clean Skies" to the Iraq War, is a lie, a misnomer, institutionalizing the exact opposite of its purported purpose. The Democrats should be able to make hay out of them, yet mostly they do not.

In my opinion, the solution is not to be like the Republicans only slightly different, the Republican-light tactics of groups like the DLC, but to make our voice and our values heard and understood better. Recall that for many years the Republicans were down and out of power. It took them 20 years, but they built an infrastructure and a media base that has allowed them to regain power in the recent past while the Democrats got lazy and complacent. That is what we need to do now: organize and educate voters. Because if we can communicate to the public, I am confident our ideas will win.

This is beginning to happen. The new progressive radio network will launch in March, and there are plans for a progressive cable news channel as well. How often do we all complain that every single news outlet is biased towards the right? Well, we need to stop whining and do something about that. While I have many issues with DNC chair Terry McAuliffe (he's far too Bush-lite for my tastes), he has been building an infrastructure and a base of operations for the Democratic Party to operate from. It will all be for naught if we cannot regain our progressive voice and stop voting with the Republicans 75% of the time out of fear of being labeled unAmerican or liberal.

Galvanized by Selection 2000 and the disaster known as George W. Bush, progressive organizations nationwide are raising lots of money and running massive GOTV campaigns. We can all support this effort by giving our time or money to these groups, like America Coming Together, MoveOn, etc. This effort is NOT coming from the Democratic Party sadly, but from the grassroots. That is what the campaign of Howard Dean was all about, and why I loved him. He spoke of empowering the people to take back their country from the right wing juggernaut, and many many people were energized and inspired by that. The Democratic party and its nominee would be wise to harness that energy.

But that won't happen by making subtle distinctions between themselves and Bush. Bush is an ultra-conservative megalomaniac, and there are many people in this country who are sick and tired of him and his party. The Democrats meanwhile have moved right of center, the center has shifted to the right, and many many people feel they are totally left out, with no one to represent them. The Democrats need to swallow their fear and speak to those forgotten masses.

I truly believe that appealing to the progressive instincts in the American people is the key to success. There is actually very little in the way of a radical left in this country today. The progressives ARE the moderates, in that our ideals are mainstream and practical. It's time for the pendulum to swing back to the left. The Democratic Party needs to learn this lesson. This is not 1992, and there is no Clinton. The right wing has taken over every branch of our government and we need a bold leadership to reverse that disturbing trend.

So, no more Republican-light! Give us a true progressive who isn't afraid and we will win.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

20. That is why we are rallying around Kerry

A true liberal, unlike Dean.

[MidwestMomma]

21. I think the Democratic Party also fails at supporting women and minority

candidates. I believe that the biggest problem with changing our Party and our country is that it is still run by the same white male majority. No other group has ever effectively challenged them for the power they have in our government and I don't see when that will change.

As the older politicians retire, they are replaced mostly with more of the same. I believe until women and minorities are elected in equal proportion to white males, nothing will probably change much. Money is power and women and minorities don't have much of either.

It's an unpleasant truth that will offend some but the truth none the less.

[Armstead]

25. I agree

The GOP kind of has that white male thing going anyway.

I'm a white middle-aged male myself, so i would not argue thet my demographic be excluded ;-). But it is important to put more of the grass-roots leaders out front.

Many of the more progressive members of the Congress are ethnic minorities or women. John Conyers and Jan Schiakovsky and Barbara Lee and Jessie Jackson Jr. among others.They -- along with us middle aged white guys -- need to be equally representative of the Democratic Party as the party of diversity.

(I'd also add that (aside from his flaky New Age rhetoric), Kucinich is more representative of the real concerns of working-class white guys, than the upper class suits are.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Well said, but I'll be voting Green.

As much as I may be tempted to vote for the "not too liberal" Dem, the only way to move the party and the nation to the left, is to make the leftist vote expensive.

If we give in to the cry that the bogey man will get us unless we surrender our votes, it becomes a lose/lose situation. The "centrists" will bray that the candidate won because he was a nice safe "moderate" or, if he loses, they will complain that he was "too liberal".

Perhaps it is just a futile gesture of dissent against the direction this country is taking under what now is a one party state but I'll sleep better knowing that I didn't give my assent to perpetuate it.

[Armstead]

38. You make a good point but still no reason to let the real bastids win

I do think priority one is getting Bush Inc. out of there.

I agree with the points you made, but it is up to the progressives to make it clear that votes don't come cheap.

What it boils down to for me is that I'd much prefer to be fighting that fight in bad circumstances than in the horrible circumstances that a Bush victory would ensure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Well, I must confess, that it's easy for me to vote Green. "Safe State".

I live in WA, which I expect will vote Dem by a wide margin. I will be voting for my senator (Murray) and rep (Baird), both solid liberals who voted against the war.

If it should happen that WA becomes close, there would be little chance for the Dem to win nationwide anyway. If he can't win here it's very unlikely he would win anywhere.

If I lived in a "swing" state, it would be a helluva lot tougher to vote my conscience.

Damn the DLC and the "Third Way" Clintons for handing us such a lousy choice.

[snoochie]

43. I understand

Sometimes I read posts on here and think, "What's the point? This party is just going to continue to slide to the right."

But then I think about France's last election, and what almost happened there as a result of the fracturing of the left.

:scared:

[DrFunkenstein]

41. Kinda Like You're Either Anti-War or Pro-War

For people that believe in justice and seeing the big picture, the people around here know how to push a false dichotomy when they see one.