A Question of Power (Something to consider in this election)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

In considering this thread and the response it got, I decided I would carry the conversation one step further here to offer a more historical perspective of the peaks and valleys of opposition parties. We've certainly had enough past events in the history of this nation to underscore the fact that any and ALL predicaments we found ourselves in happened over time..not a couple years but usually decades.

The author of this article, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., lay out a good historical perspective of the issues that have faced us and the endless pull for power that has plagued us literally since corporations have existed. All in all, he makes a good case for why our form of government still exists to this day and he ALSO does a very good job of distinguishing PROGRESSIVE from what it has come to be defined as in conversations at DU.

He also makes the BEST ABB argument and for those who are unhappy with the Democrats for the last few years, he scores a few points that will ring true for you as well. The interesting thing is that he wrote this PRIOR to 9/11 but it is just as relevent as if he wrote it yesterday. I also feel it conveniently ties into my other thread about judges as he cites Buckley V Valeo (76)(sorry for the Hoover link)
which of course has been taken to the obscene extreme in recent history

I have taken this series of paragraphs out of the HEART of the article but encourage everyone to read it fully.

snip
The national government, the Progressives felt, was the key to the preservation of democracy. It was in particular the protector of the powerless. The Jeffersonian illusion was to say that local government was more responsive because it was "closer" to the people. But local government has mostly been government by the locally powerful. The way the locally powerless have asserted their human and constitutional rights has been through appeal to the national government. As James Madison had predicted long ago to George Washington in proposing a congressional veto on state legislation, national authority was essential to defend the rights of minorities and individuals against the aggressions of local majorities.

History has justified Madison. The national government has affirmed the Bill of Rights against local vigilantism. It has protected the public lands, forests, and waterways from local greed. It has civilized industry, secured the rights of labor organizations, improved life in the countryside, and provided a decent living for the old. Above all, the national government has pressed for racial justice against local bigotry. Had the states' rights creed prevailed, we would still have slavery in the United States.

Yet in recent years, there has been a backlash against the national government. "Government is not the solution to our problem," Reagan said in his first inaugural address. "Government is the problem." Democratic presidents proclaim that the era of big government is over. A Supreme Court majority seems eager to shrink the commerce clause, defer to state sovereignty, and move the Constitution back toward the Articles of Confederation (except, of course, when judicial intervention is necessary to elect a Republican president).

The attack on affirmative government had long been on the way. "The slogan of a åwelfare state,'" said Herbert Hoover, "has emerged as a disguise for the totalitarian state by the route of spending." In 1944 Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom endorsed the proposition that countries go totalitarian when governments acquire excessive power under the pretext of doing good for their citizens.

The Hoover-Hayek thesis was, and is, historical nonsense. Impotent democratic government, and not unduly potent democratic government, has laid the foundation for totalitarianism. Fascist and communist regimes arose not because democratic government was too powerful but because it was too weak. Sixty years ago, Thurman W. Arnold scoffed at "the absurd idea that dictatorships are the result of a long series of small seizures of power on the part of the central government." The exact opposite, he pointed out, was the case. "Every dictatorship which we now know," he wrote, "flowed into power like air into a vacuum because the central government, in the face of a real difficulty, declined to exercise authority."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/schlesinger-a.html


Following this article, I continue to ASSERT that ANY Democrats on the ticket, given the politics of numbers, and the electoral college, are FAR superior to the choice of voting thrid party, dividing the left, and risking 4 more years of Bush.

[maddezmom]

1. just keep thinking about the recess Judicial appointments by bush*

it's enough for me. :)

[Claire Beth]

25. AMEN to that! n/t

[Guaranteed]

2. That's an interesting article, but I don't think any of that

excuses our party leadership for not doing their jobs.

I understand the cyclical natures of our society and government, but in a healthy political environment we should be seeing the come and go of our representatives as what they believe goes in and out of fashion. Some "bending with the times" is, of course, necessary, certainly post-9/11, but many of our ideals that have gone "out of fashion" should NOT be "bent" at ALL, and in fact become worthless if not treated with the utmost respect.

I'd rather our representatives make a real argument for what's right, make the best case that they can, and put some faith in the voters. If they lose their jobs (and we "lose power"), well, darnit, there's always next year, or the year after, and the times keep changing. Hopefully, and most likely, people will come around again (and usually that takes real leadership). It seems to me that the voters see through the political garbage and "nuancing," as they're calling it nowadays, anyway. Even those who try to save their jobs by sacrificing their integrity tend to be unsuccessful in their re-election bids. They're just seen as weak, or losers. Politicians are supposed to be in control of things, not at the mercy of things. Taking some pride in one's dedication to a cause, really BELIEVING in something, goes a long way with people.

[rucky]

6. Enough people are ready for that type of leadership

enough to predict that it will be the popular for future elections & some current local elections - but not for this election cycle. Trouble is right now, when people want change but fear the outcome, they don't want to try anything new - they want to be lulled back to sleep (insert Kerry joke here).

Once again, the straight talkers have to take one for the team. But the cycle is shifting. It'll be easier for leaders to say what's on their minds when there's less at stake. And even as the cycle shifts - we'll see the old brand of politics wrapped up in new "populist" clothing.

The "trend" now: campaign to the center, govern to the extreme. Smacks of insincerity, but wins elections. Considering Kerry's lifetime liberal record took a sharp turn about the same time he knew he'd be running, it seems to be mostly strategic. It's not the strategy that helps turn the cycle where we want it, but it's the one that's taken with a majority of voters - this time. It's not that they're gutless, it's that we're particularly gutsy considering the social climate. But there will be plenty of Howard Dean types popping up on the scene, and America will feel more confident to take a new direction as our time of fear subsides.

[library_max]

7. So not the point.

Your critique of the performance of Democratic leaders misses the point. They are what we have to work with, in the real world. They have expertise we lack, they know things we don't. I don't think its possible to be sure that, if you or I were in their position, knowing what they know, we wouldn't do just what they're doing. It's easy to criticize when you're not responsible for the outcomes.

But even supposing they're not performing up to par, the fact remains that they're what we've got. We can work with them, work on them if you prefer, or we can just wash our hands and hand over power to the Republicans. The more we encourage contempt for our leaders (without walking a mile in their mocassins), the more idealistic left voters we encourage to wash their hands instead of rolling up their sleeves.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Smack me silly, but I agree with you on this!!!

But even supposing they're not performing up to par, the fact remains that they're what we've got. We can work with them, work on them if you prefer, or we can just wash our hands and hand over power to the Republicans. The more we encourage contempt for our leaders (without walking a mile in their mocassins), the more idealistic left voters we encourage to wash their hands instead of rolling up their sleeves.

I'll bet you never thought I'd endorse this line of thought, but I couldn't agree more. I find our Democratic Party leadership to be ineffectual, enabling, and uninspiring -- but the fact remains that they are the only thing in the short term that stands between us and a faster slide toward fascism.

BTW -- I would choose the "work on them" choice. Working with them co-opts our energies into their ineffectual "leadership" rather than providing the impetus for positive change. See my post #8 below.

[sangha]

11. I know *I* never thought you'd say that

I find our Democratic Party leadership to be ineffectual, enabling, and uninspiring

True, they are the worst political party in American history, aside from all the other parties.

[library_max]

18. Actually, I've come to appreciate your nuanced position.

I'm skeptical about the prognosis for change from within, but I don't object to it. I think the biggest difference between us right along has been a difference of emphasis.

[IrateCitizen]

19. It's because we learned to stop talking past each other...

... and actually come to find areas of convergence (if not outright overlap).

I don't discount the importance of reforms within, as they are needed. I also recognize that government DOES play a role in helping to bring about change. However, my emphasis is on avoiding the pitfalls of RELYING on government to bring that change about, and instead FORCING them to acquiesce to that change and enable it.

Politics is little more than a grand game of coersion. The government coerces us into supporting things we normally wouldn't every day. A sizable minority of the population doesn't support the campaign in Iraq nor the PATRIOT Act, but they still passively support it through payment of their taxes as well as other ways. Why do they do this? Because the government coerces them to pay those taxes and to acquiesce under threat of sanction, including imprisonment.

While one person refusing to pay their taxes under those policies would certainly be overrun, imagine if almost everyone who opposes those policies suddenly refused to pay their taxes? The government would not be able to adequately bring sanctions against ALL of those people, so they would undoubtedly target a few for a harsh backlash. But if all of those people remained resolute, then the government would have no choice in the end to acquiesce to the coersion of the people.

This is because, in the end analysis, the government's source of power is directly derived from the support of the people, whether that support is active or passive. If that support is suddenly removed or weakened significantly, then the leaders really don't have power. This is the same whether under a dictatorship or in a democracy.

Like I said above in agreeing with your statement -- don't necessarily work WITH them, work ON them. There will be areas in which convergence of view will be perceived as working with them, but it should not be adopted as the overall strategy, because submission to or co-opting by leaders has no capacity to coerce them to change, in the long run.

[library_max]

43. Suppose the people opposed to the war and PATRIOT ACT

stopped paying their taxes? There'd be backlash, as you say. Suppose they stood firm? Suppose they actually managed to stand firm enough to get away with it? The government would then have to acquiesce to them. Probably not by withdrawing from Iraq and repealing the PATRIOT ACT, but by letting them slide on the taxes and sort-of encouraging them out of the polity (no government services, etc.). This has been what governments have historically done when minorities can't be forced to go along with majority decisions.

So then of course people who are opposed to sex education and abortion stop paying THEIR taxes, and "stand firm." And pretty soon people who are opposed to drug laws and laws against prostitution stop paying THEIR taxes. Why shouldn't they? It worked for the antiwar people. Next stop anarchy, stop after that military control or some other form of outright fascism. That's the way these things actually work, historically. A government that can't stop its citizens from saying "no" isn't a government at all.

Peaceful protest is different. There was peaceful protest against the war (and some not so peaceful). It was ignored. Peaceful protest can always be ignored and treated as a police matter. The reason MLK's protests were not ignored is because a sympathetic government was in power at the time. But nothing King did would ever have "forced" change on an unwilling government.

[izzie]

3. Sounds about right that it takes years to move one way or the other.

Look at the south. In the 60's it started to move to the Rep party. I would say it did that as the laws came in with the civil rights.Only blacks seem to be Dem in the South now. It could have gone either way. First Ike did things with the National Guard and schools and then JFK came in and pushed it more. We now think of it as a Dem movement but Ike was their right after Truman who did things. If the Rep party of the South is not anti-black I will eat my hat. I can not tell you word for word but they show this some how. Now we have Bush trying to pick up the Mexican vote and things are moving once more. Some thing is going on. On top of this you have so many people who do not vote. Almost 50%. I do not know what that will do to the parties. Where are the day workers and the people who have low paying jobs? The Dem better get them to vote as they would out number the Rep and the party needs them.The wave has nearly crested for the rich and Christian right wing and it is time it started down.

[izzie]

4. Also

If we keep the GOP in power we seem to be ruled from the top down and I like it from the bottom up.

[IrateCitizen]

10. You're ruled from the top down no matter who is in power

In this respect, just like with regards to foreign policy, the two parties are really just different sides of the same coin. With the reliance upon the centralized federal government as the impetus of change that is inherent in the general philosophy of liberalism (and one of the prime distinctions between liberalism and progressivism), it can hardly be said that even a liberal administration would advocate a "bottom-up" grassroots kind of system.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. You rule from the top down because the top has the bully pulpit

While I was not happy with some of Clinton's programs, during his first year he passed more of his programs than any president since Eisenhower...although I suspect Bush may have now dwarfed that for the worse (not that Clinton's were all good) The point IS the president's agenda sets the conversation. I would certainly hope that a Kerry agenda would be far more palatable than Clinton's was and it does remain to be seen if he gets the nod....I KNOW it will be FAR more palatable than a Bush agenda and THAT is what we have to work with.

Of course some advocate revolution, but I'm for gradual revolution at the ballot box rather than other less desirable alternatives.

[IrateCitizen]

13. I'm not disputing that, NSMA

That's perhaps one of the most important things about the Presidency -- the bully pulpit. The point I was merely trying to make is that neither side is truly interested in empowering the grassroots, because that is not their purpose for existing as politicians. Their reason for existing as politicians is to affirm the status quo -- and increased grassroots involvement has the capability of severely upsetting that status quo.

That's a reason that I'm a big proponent of extra-electoral action -- as should be clear from the reasons I laid out in post #8.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. We are not in disagreement

The only thing I would POINT to is that there was an article in the LAT demonstrating that even in Iowa and NH and the states following...the two frontrunners (currently Kerry and Edwards) spent FAR less time advertising on TV than getting out and connecting with voters...they have done the same for the upcoming Super Tuesday states...put MORE energy into appearances and GOTV efforts than TV advertising....so I think you are seeing more receptivity to YOUR analysis than people are willing to admit.

[IrateCitizen]

16. I think we're seeing an EMERGENCE of that analysis

As far as receptivity goes, it has a bit to go to entrench itself.

And probably the person most to credit for this is someone no longer in the race -- Howard Dean. Dean was the first person to really tap into the power of outrage that is pulsing beneath vast segments of the electorate. The other candidates, despite running more traditional, top-down campaigns, got to the point that they could no longer ignore that outrage -- they instead had to deal with it.

Of course, this is the primary election, too -- going state-by-state. It remains to be seen if the nominee (most likely Kerry) will continue to make serious efforts to connect with voters on a more personal level, or if he will abandon such an approach for the typical TV blitz favored for Presidential elections. And even further than that, it remains to be seen if he will numb his ears to that outrage if elected -- or if he will slide a bit toward embracing populism.

The fear, of course, in all of this is that the GOP has so much money to run an unremitting smear campaign that the DNC will choose to try and meet them through "traditional" means only. This, IMHO, would be extremely destructive to the long-term prospects of the Democratic party regardless of whether our nominee wins or loses. In the most recent episode of NOW, there was an interview with ACLU attorney Constance Rice (2nd cousin to Condi) in which she said that there is no real Democratic Party anymore -- it's become nothing more than a fundraising apparatus that pops up ever 2 years for Congressional elections and every 4 years for a Presidential. If the DNC were to focus serious efforts on continuing this kind of grassroots campaigning and "getting out with the voters", it could provide a serious boost to the Democratic Party whether it won or lost the upcoming election, by actually helping to redefine the party as more than a fundraising apparatus -- but as a real vehicle of vision and ideas, especially in the eyes of the voting public.

[sangha]

17. IMO, we're ruled from the top down because

that's how out govt is designed. The Constitutional Convention was held for the specific purpose of strengthening the Federal govt. The dangers of a weak Fed govt were made clear to the Framers in the years immediately following the end of the American Revolution, when the weak Fed govt couldn't collect taxes, enforce laws, or even set a foreign policy, due to their weakness and the strengths of the states.

[IrateCitizen]

20. No disagreement here -- see my post #8 below...

... last three paragraphs, specifically.

[sangha]

24. It's excellent

You should bookmark that. I have.

[diamondsoul]

5. Hmmm....

I think that's "Dr. Laura's" ex-husband! I could potentially accept his reasoning. After all he had the good sence to ditch her!:evilgrin:

[IrateCitizen]

8. I must disagree with Schlessinger's assessment of power

At least with regards to his validation of centralized power as the key to freedom. While I believe that a Federal Goverment willing to back popular movements is a good thing, I also believe that we are actually under a kind of "curse of the New Deal" with regards to the problems we face today.

What do I mean by that? In the period around the turn of the 20th century, the Federal Government was a cesspool of corruption that might make the current state of affairs appear pristine by comparison. Senators were voted in by state legislatures, and those state legislatures were entirely captive to the Robber Barons and industrial magnates. In William McKinley, we had a President who advocated the first vestiges of Imperialism outside of our borders -- prior to that point, imperialism had been limited to the seizure of land from the Native peoples, but they had all been vanquished by the late 1800's.

However, out of this dark cloud, the seeds of real change were sown. The militant and burgeoning labor movement of that time forced its demands on industry. Women forced their suffrage demands on the majority of the population. People forced their voting rights on the government, resulting in an amendment calling for the direct election of Senators -- something that was most certainly an instance of using government for positive change. And out of the Populist campaigns of William Jennings Bryan and the Progressive campaign of Robert LaFollette, the base for the New Deal was laid prior to FDR's ascendancy.

But there was also a great deal lost in these fights. Prior to the accumulation of vast powers by the Federal Government during FDR's time, the focus of change had been on the extralegislative process -- citizens forming power centers outside of government. After the successes of the New Deal, the focus turned to trying to affect all change by acting THROUGH government, rather than forcing it to move from the outside. The previously militant unions directed their energies in the post WWII era not into organizing and agitating, but instead in directly involving themselves in the electoral process. Considering the cesspool that electoral politics is to a large degree, it is important to note the corruption that developed within the large unions over this period as well.

The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's also went the course of forcing change on the system through nonviolent noncooperation to shifting its attention to working inside of the system through electoral process. We now live in a time in which, while people of color enjoy greater social freedoms that before, they find their political and economic freedoms limited to a degree that hasn't been seen in a generation or two. Economic opportunity for black Americans is, on average, at a level of pre-desegregation.

The women's movement has also followed this course, moving in a shift from militant feminism to the current tactics of groups like NARAL and Emily's List of focusing a great deal of their energies on working within the system. Contrast their campaigns with those of the suffragettes who would actually strip in public (during Victorian times, no less!) and stage prison hunger strikes to protest the lack of their right to vote.

And we also can't ignore the role of US military hegemony and the rise of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex in this, leading to the centralization of incredible powers within the Federal Government, many of which we are seeing the dark effects of now quite plainly. The average citizen cannot help but feel hopeless in the face of such aggrandized power -- and also feel quite discouraged in attempting to work outside of the state for change.

Even within the ideals of traditional liberalism, the state is seen as the primary vehicle through which to affect change. While it is necessary for the state to VALIDATE change by being forced to accept it, by no means in these earlier struggles was working through the state seen as the vehicle for achieving change. These earlier agitators realized, quite correctly, that the state was the protector of the status quo, and therefore would RESIST them in their efforts. Somewhere along the way we lost that realization, and now expect all of our problems to be solved through government.

This line of thinking, IMHO, affects us negatively in two ways. First, it stagnates our ideas -- by conditioning us to think only in a narrow ideological box of our ability to affect change. Second, it helps to centralize the very power that we often find ourselves fighting against.

Schlessinger is quick to dismiss Jefferson's advocation for localized control, but he misses one important caveat in Jefferson's line of thought. Jefferson did not present democracy as an easy form of government. In fact, he was quite adamant in his stance that it was damned hard work to maintain a functioning democracy. I believe that it was he who said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." By this quote, he was not referring to threats from without, but warning us against the constant threat of abuse of power from within. Only by securing an active, responsible and informed populace could this threat be countered.

Likewise, Benjamin Franklin was said to have been asked by a woman while coming out of the Constitutional Convention, "What kind of government have you given us, Mr. Franklin?" His response was quite in line with the same kind of attitudes reflected by Mr. Jefferson. "A Republic -- if you can keep it."

On the other hand, Schlessinger's mention of James Madison is also important to note, because it was Madison who said during the Constitutional Convention, "The role of government is to protect the opulent minority from the less-opulent majority." This seems to fit to a certain degree with the views of John Jay who said, "Those who own the country ought to govern it." And this kind of attitude is the chilling sidebar to Mr. Schlessinger's endorsement of centralized power, because it succeeds in moving the locus of power further and further away from the people subject to it -- and therefore, much less controllable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Response

What do I mean by that? In the period around the turn of the 20th century, the Federal Government was a cesspool of corruption that might make the current state of affairs appear pristine by comparison.

I disagree here...I think we are reliving that era..>TEAPOT ..PANAMA CANAL etc


Senators were voted in by state legislatures, and those state legislatures were entirely captive to the Robber Barons and industrial magnates.

I think ENRON and state deregulation of energy is a viable comparison

In William McKinley, we had a President who advocated the first vestiges of Imperialism outside of our borders -- prior to that point, imperialism had been limited to the seizure of land from the Native peoples, but they had all been vanquished by the late 1800's.

Seems to me with a policy of preemption to benefit our oil companies we have taken that one step farther to the extreme.

The reaminder of your historical perspective I have no argument with until we get to your last paragraph. I think there is a way to keep a centralized government in check and Shclesinger rightly makes a distinction between the kinds of regulations that sour the will to do so and the kind of regulation that enforce the possibility of a democracy...we have seen the rise of the MIC and of course it is difficult to make entirely valid comparisons with the advent of globalization and trade compacts enforced by offshore tribunals so the task has gotten trickier, but nonetheless...I revert back to the notion that PRIOR to corporations taking control of our fed...they played one state against the other...then moved in for the kill...


Either way...on the chessboard, you move one piece at a time.

[library_max]

21. In chronicling American imperialism, you left out the Mexican War.

I guess you could make a case for it being inside of our borders (now), but it wasn't really seizing land from Native peoples.

And are you seriously suggesting that Blacks are no better off now than they were under Jim Crow? You'd have to define "economic opportunity" awfully narrowly, and even then I'd want to see some numbers. We have Black CEOs, Black multimillionaires, Black senators and representatives, Black Supreme Court justices and cabinet officials. So really - no better opportunity?

Jefferson wrote about a pastoral society a small fraction of the size we have now. The same principles simply don't apply. In a society as large and complex as ours, another word for centralized government is "government." Decentralize and you have entropy - "things fall apart, the center cannot hold." The hallmark of state and local governments since Vietnam at least has been a "race to the bottom" in social support for vulnerable persons.

I believe that the idea of mass movements "forcing their will" on elites is a gross misreading of history. The labor movement got lockouts, pogroms and Pinkertons for its trouble, until labor law started to be enacted. Neither suffragettes nor voting rights advocates forced anything - those innovations were enacted by the central government. Likewise the New Deal. The grassroots called for these things, but history is replete with such calls, and they are rarely answered.

The history of grassroots movements for social change is almost entirely a history of failure, in the United States and elsewhere (or catastrophic success, as in Russia). Note that all the government resistance you approve netted a big zero in actual results. Good things come when and only when such a movement matches up with a sympathetic government. Especially nowadays, the centralized state, responsible to the people through the vehicle of elections, is the only power available to counterbalance the power of economic elites who are not responsible to the people in any way whatsoever.

[IrateCitizen]

22. I think you're overestimating my perspective here

While you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the overall effectiveness of government in generating societal change, I think you're mistakenly portraying my POV as not at all recognizing the need for government endorsement. Perhaps I could do better at clarifying this, but when continually confronted by POV's that expect all change to come from government, it is probably a natural swinging of the pendulum too far in the other direction.

WRG to the Mexican War, you do have a valid point. But that still applied to the idea of "Manifest Destiny", a very racist concept. The difference with McKinley was that he was the first President to actively endorse the extension of Manifest Destiny outside of our borders.

And are you seriously suggesting that Blacks are no better off now than they were under Jim Crow? You'd have to define "economic opportunity" awfully narrowly, and even then I'd want to see some numbers. We have Black CEOs, Black multimillionaires, Black senators and representatives, Black Supreme Court justices and cabinet officials. So really - no better opportunity?

Actually, I think the reason I'm coming to the conclusions at which I'm arriving is because I'm defining economic opportunity pretty broadly. While we have black CEO's, multimillionaires, Representatives (I don't think we have a black Senator anymore) and so on -- these are isolated cases when compared with the norm. Overall, economic opportunities for people of color have been on a general decline correspondent with the dismantling of any kind of welfare state. While previously -- in spite of some severe social bias -- they were able to move from poor to working and middle class, most of those avenues for advancement are disappearing. If you've ever lived in an inner city over the last several years, you would be able to see this. People can hardly be expected to better themselves, en masse, if there is no investment in their potential for advancement -- be it from investment in education, health care, home ownership, or what have you. The specific reference I was calling on to support this is the book The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz, but I don't have it with me right now so I can't cite the exact data.

Jefferson wrote about a pastoral society a small fraction of the size we have now. The same principles simply don't apply. In a society as large and complex as ours, another word for centralized government is "government." Decentralize and you have entropy - "things fall apart, the center cannot hold." The hallmark of state and local governments since Vietnam at least has been a "race to the bottom" in social support for vulnerable persons.

And while entropy is a real possibility without a viable center, the opposite of that is when a center gathers too much gravity and becomes a black hole, displacing space around it to the extent that nothing can escape. Personally, I feel that we're moving toward the latter, so there's no real danger in approaching the former if we decentralize to a degree.

Addressing your statement on the "race to the bottom", I have no argument with the basic premise, except to say that I don't think it's an issue of decentralization. Rather, it could be a correction of the anomaly that occurred in the post-WWII era with regards to the creation of a more egalitarian society. To be quite honest, I believe that the federal government has been just as complicit as state governments in enabling this trend, if not more so. It also was the result of complacence among the populace forgetting the battles against business excesses a couple of generations prior.

With regards to your last two paragraphs, you're completely ignoring the nuance that you express respect for in the previous post, and instead re-assuming the inflexible view that grassroots movements have absolutely nothing to do with change and that all positive change comes from on high. I am not proposing that all change comes from the grassroots. What I am proposing is that all change STARTS there. It's a long and symbiotic process. Proponents of change are ALWAYS on the fringes initially. It is after their movements gain significant popular support that their effect begins to be felt within the electoral process, and sympathetic people become elected. Then, is not when the change comes, but when it is validated.

By what you've written here, "The history of grassroots movements for social change is almost entirely a history of failure, in the United States and elsewhere (or catastrophic success, as in Russia). Note that all the government resistance you approve netted a big zero in actual results," you have expressed such an extreme hostility for grassroots politics that the only thing I can do is hope that you don't really believe this to be true, and instead were only saying it to counteract what your perceived to be a perspective that was entirely reliant on grassroots change. If I am mistaken in this hope, then I can only conclude that I am being confronted with such willful ignorance and resistance that it is impossible to strive for convergence.

Finally, your last sentence I completely disagree with: "Especially nowadays, the centralized state, responsible to the people through the vehicle of elections, is the only power available to counterbalance the power of economic elites who are not responsible to the people in any way whatsoever."

And what is it that ensures that those politicians are responsible to the people rather than to the economic elites? Grassroots involvement and extra-legislative organizations, that's how. In fact, DAILY involvement in the process is the very definition of political freedom. What you are expressing here is a complete lack of political freedom outside of a one-day token exercise. If this point of view is the accurate and inevitable one, then it is true that government and civil society has only the potential to be a struggle between a few factions of elites -- and the rest of us should just give up and drop out, happy for whatever scraps they deign to throw our way.

[library_max]

38. As I said before,

I think most of our differences are in matters of emphasis. As I see it, the context of our discussions continues to be the larger discussion on DU about the importance of supporting the Democratic Party in the general election vs. the importance of sending messages and agitating for party leadership change regardless of what it costs us in 2004. I have a dog in that fight - I think we all do. If I seem unduly slighting toward extrapolitical (or extraelectoral, if you prefer) solutions, it's partly because I have no wish to say or do anything that would encourage the young and idealistic to vote Nader or some such. Even so, I hope I would never go so far as to call your position "willful ignorance," however much we might disagree.

Regarding the Mexican War, I agree completely that the racism of Manifest Destiny was a major factor.

I'm not sure I understand how the welfare system, though it provided an important safety net, actually provided economic opportunity, unless it was for the people working in the welfare offices. Regarding The Way We Never Were, which I have not read, I suspect that you and I may take a different approach regarding how much we believe of what we read. I see an awful lot of books written to try to trump up a man-bites-dog view of some aspect of reality, not so much because it's true (although one can jigger statistics and select and arrange facts out of context to make it appear true) but because nobody else has said it before. You can't sell a book that says, Yup, the other historians (economists, sociologists, etc.) sure were right about everything.

I do think that the distinction between when the change comes and when it's validated is a distinction without a difference. Women couldn't vote until suffrage was validated by the government. Slavery wasn't abolished until abolition was validated by the government. Etc.

[IrateCitizen]

40. If you were to read many of my recent posts on this subject...

... you will see that I am in no way encouraging people to vote for anyone except the Democratic nominee. I harbor no plans to do so, either, because I realize that although I am far from happy with the recent performance of our Democratic politicians, they represent the choice that will provide the lesser impediment toward the achievement of progressive goals. Therefore, voting for the Democrat is the more prudent course to take.

You're confusing my discussion of "sending messages" by portraying it as lying within the realm of electoral politics. In fact, I have been quite explicit that such activities are best coordinated OUTSIDE of electoral politics, as opposed to WITHIN electoral politics. The two often act in concert with one other, even as they seemingly move in different directions.

If I offended you by using the term "willful ignorance", I apologize. I only used it because of how surprised I was to hear you talking of finding convergence with me in one post, only to subsequently blindside me in the next.

With regards to the book I mentioned, I brought it up because it was one of those works that made me think in different ways. The basic premise of the book is to lay open the calls by conservatives to return to some better time, because the time never existed. A large portion of the book is devoted to discussing investment by government in various social programs -- and the corollary that such investment provided the times of greatest economic mobility, especially from poor to middle class. The "American Dream" often gets misconstrued as going from rags to riches, but that's not what it initially meant. It used to be, at its essence, about being able to go from nothing to owning a modest home and providing a better opportunity for future generations. In this respect, I don't think that there's a helluva lot of movement into middle class taking place with families in South Central LA these days. In fact, with the significant cutbacks in those old social programs, coupled with the further atomization of society, those opportunities of moving from poor to middle class have been diminished. Many of the poor are increasingly being stuck in a grinding wheel of poverty. This applies specifically to black Americans because they have statistically always had a significantly higher percentage of their population living in poverty than whites.

And I don't necessarily believe everything I read -- I digest it and consider that which makes me think. I do sometimes get overzealous with those books that do make me think in new ways, that much I admit.

With regards to the last two arguments, it is doubtful that either of them would have happened without the long, sustained campaigns of agitation. So, in this respect, you're probably right for saying that we're making a distinction where there's no difference.

[library_max]

46. I trust *your* judgement.

The problem is, we're discussing this in a public forum. And a lot of people are listening who do not have your capacity for nuance. People who can't see the point in voting for the Democratic nominee when what they want is systemic change.

For much of the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree. I continue to believe that, despite setbacks in the last couple of decades, Blacks nationwide are infinitely better off than they were under Jim Crow, economically as well as otherwise. And I also believe that, while agitation may help bring about government reforms, it accomplishes nothing at all by itself - that friendly government is the sine qua non of meaningful progress in matters of law. Evolving social norms and mores are of course entirely a different matter, but the issues we've been talking about (civil rights, suffrage, slavery, labor rights) are all matters of law.

[Nederland]

23. Ho Hum

Just like everyone else around here that is ABB, you ignore the fact that the electoral college makes a big difference. Voting 3rd party in a non-swing state is a far more effective way of getting your opinion known that mindlessly voting the party line. This means that for people living in 40 of the 50 states, voting 3rd party makes perfect sense. People who don't get this are enemies of real change.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. If pissing in the wind pleases you

It would seem far more effective for any and all third parties to focus on congress where they can bee seen for their agenda thereby making a name for themselves in the legislative field than to keep playing swing state spoiler to their own detriment. I've not noticed any libertarians fawning over the accomplishments of George Bush and in fact the Ayn Rand institute figureheads have mostly pulicly mocked him yet Libertarians helped elect him with that strategy...by your very presence here..I suspect you do as well..finally if you look at 40 of those 50 swing states, right leaning libertarians undermine the right and left leaning WOD hating Libertarians undermine the left.

[Nederland]

27. 3rd parties can't even win a Congressional seat

...so your argument is flawed. The whole point of voting 3rd party is not to win, but bring attention to the fact that there is a sizeable number of people that are unhappy with both major parties. So long as you continue to mindlessly vote for someone you don't believe in, the major parties will continue to ignore you. If you are enjoying that state of affairs, you are welcome to it.

I continue to maintain that there is nothing wrong with voting 3rd party in a non-swing state. Nothing you've said says otherwise.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Why can't they? Some congressional districts are small

Besides..does Bernie Saunders ring a bell?

[Nederland]

32. Got me there

But you have yet to explain to me why a person in a non-swing state should feel obligated to vote for a a major party candidate if that candidate doesn't best reflect their views. What's the point of voting for someone you don't believe in when you vote won't effect the outcome?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. Well if OUTCOMES is all that matter then fine

i.e. the outcome being who wins and who loses

And if you are attempting to obtain public financing for your guy then fine as well...but if one party's agenda suits you more than the other's then the more electoral votes, the more there is a mandate suggested for that platform.

[Nederland]

34. ABB == OUTCOMES are all that matter

At least, that's what it seem like to me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. In this election that much is probably valid

given the manner in which he has used his office,his pen, his ability to sign executive orders and his administration's penchant for taking LYING to an ART form beyond even our last president...no?

[sangha]

28. Voting 3rd party in non-swing state is a..way of geting your opinion known

true, and if I wanted my opinion to be known, I would vote 3rd party. This year, I want to elect a Dem.

How does voting 3rd party help me get a Dem elected?

[IrateCitizen]

29. I doesn't. But perhaps Nederland is coming from a different...

... perspective than yours in this matter. :shrug:

[Nederland]

31. It doesn't

But you're missing the point.

Unless you live in a swing state, your vote for that Democrat doesn't really matter. Don't get me wrong. If you look at the ballot and see that John Kerry (or whoever the nominee is) is the person that best matches your political views then by all means, vote for John Kerry. But if you live in a non-swing state and find that Ralph Nader is closer to your own views than the Democratic nominee, then I fail to see why you should throw away your vote on a person you don't believe in.

If I'm wrong on this, help me out because personally I don't get it.

[sangha]

36. Ah, I see

However, I think you are discounting the importance and possibility of a mandate, which is often the result of how the margin of victory is perceived. And then there's the bandwagon effect. The bandwagon may not sway you (or me), but I think there's little doubt that it affects some people, and to the extent that we each contribute to it, the Dem candidate benefits, not just from your vote, but from the votes of those who are affected by the bandwagon.

[Nederland]

39. Mandates are Fiction

George Bush got fewer votes than Al Gore and yet he governs as if he has a mandate. Result: he gets everything he wants.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. His mandate was not present prior to 9/11 although one might concede

he got his tax cuts through and a few judges but certainly NOT the majority of his programs...after 9/11 a mandate was invented via the media and the "you are either for us or against us" crap that the opposition party allowed themselves to be trapped into.

Even with the tax cuts, the program for rebates to middle and lower incomes was not part of the original package nor were the deferred dates.

Back to the subject at hand though, a mandate was indeed manufactured via the national emergency rather than the ballot box and the desire for the country to come together after the obvious shock.

[sangha]

45. I'm with nsma. I don't see any Bush* mandate

I saw a groundswell of support after 9/11, but I didn't see a mandate after the election. I saw Bush* try to claim a mandate. I also saw his claim ignored.

[IrateCitizen]

47. I disagree

His mandate was the fact that the Republicans had control of the WH, SCOTUS and both houses of Congress. It wasn't until the Jeffords switch that a monkey wrench was thrown into those gears. And that wasn't even really a viable counterforce -- it was more or less just a slowing of the juggernaught, up until 9/11 at least.

Like JFK said after the razor-thin 1960 election, "We don't need a mandate. We have the White House."

[sangh0]

51. That's not a mandate, IMO

That's power.

IMO a manadte is something the people give, and it's usually assumed as a result of an election where one candidate wins an overwhelming mahjority.

[IrateCitizen]

52. An overwhelming majority of what?

Of votes, or of eligible voters? If only 50% of the electorate actually bothers to cast a ballot, and one candidate gets 55% of those votes, would that 27.5% of the electorate be considered a mandate?

In case you don't recognize this, it's much the same argument used by Chomsky and Herman in Manufacturing Consent to debunk the whole "mandate" myth surrounding Reagan's 1984 re-election.

[library_max]

53. Think of the voters as a sample.

There's no good reason to believe that the nonvoters don't divide up more-or-less the same way as the voters. It's not that unreasonable to extrapolate from the voters to the electorate as a whole, especially on the basic two-choices question of which candidate for president.

[library_max]

37. First, more than ten states are going to be in play.

Especially when you factor in the difficulty of predicting exactly which states those are going to be. I would estimate that there are no more than thirty truly safe red or blue states, and maybe less than that.

But the other problem is that people live in the states they live in. If we make a big noise about how all "real" Democrats or "real" progressives or non-pink-tutus or insert-your-self-righteous-phrase-heres should vote third party to send a message or force the Democrats to move to the left, that noise will be heard just as clearly in the battleground states as everywhere else.

I live in Texas. I could write in Adolf Hitler for all the difference my vote for president is going to make in the general election. But I stick like a burr to ABB in any public forum such as DU. It's not because I don't have any issue differences with the current Democratic leadership. It's because I know progressives are listening in Florida and Missouri and Arizona and New Mexico and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Arkansas and Lousisiana and New Hampshire and New Jersey and all the other battleground states we need to carry this time. I want to help tip them into our column, not out of it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. We like to deny that we are the media here

but if DU is getting about 120,000 hits nearly daily and even more during high news cycles, that certainly DOES translate into reaching potentially millions and who knows what states.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. kick

[jonnyblitz]

48. kick

interesting article.

[Armstead]

49. This is an inyteresting post and subject

I havce thoughts about this, and want to reply. But I can't at the moment, So I'll just gove this a :kick: for the moment and will add my thoughts later on when I get a few minutes to type them out.

[library_max]

50. kick

:kick:

[library_max]

54. One last kick for an interesting and valuable thread

:kick:

[BruinAlum]

55. Okay, you convinced me.

I won't vote 3rd Party. :)

And I hope those who do get their hemorrhoids infested with fleas.

No? Well, just a kick then.