Hug a right-wing voter, if you want to improve progressives' chances.
There is a standard view of the political spectrum, from left to right, and where the idea of 'reaching out' to the other side is a pretty harmful thing - it means giving up important principles and policies to compromise and get cooperation. Hey, support this corrupt corporate policy, and you'll get this good social justice policy.
We rightfully are repulsed by that paradigm.
Toss it out the window here. There's another.
There's a Ronald Reagan anecdote that has an important political lesson.
Running for governor of California, at every stop, he'd condemn the left-wing radical protesters.
His aides asked him, why are you doing that? Polls show voters don't care about that issue.
Reagan told them: they will.
The point is, Reagan knew an issue he could use. He was a Republican with no experience running against a popular governor in a golden age for California. Why should anyone vote for him? He understood the need to was to determine what issues voters chose to care about.
Don't take the issues they already care about and try to win on them - he'd lose. Instead, get them to care about what he was strong on.
It's important to remember that elections aren't about fixed issues, they're about which issues voters choose to care about.
Democrats typically look at Republican voters and say, 'how can they do that? Don't they understand how against their interests that is?'
Some do, some don't, but that's the wrong question. Even if they do, what matters is, there's something else the voter is choosing to care about.
This is why negative campaigning is so powerful: if the voter hates a candidate and is voting against them, they're blind to a lot of flaws in who they're voting for. It's a lot easier to make voters vote against someone than for someone.
If people want to defeat right-wing candidates, they need to adjust what voters are caring about.
And that means giving those voters less reasons to hate progressives and vote against them, so they can start to care about the Republicans' flaws.
So many Democrats and progressives seem to think that if they just get Republican voters to understand what terrible racists they are, they'll feel bad about it and vote differently. It's never actually happened, but they think it should.
What's needed instead is to find common ground on important issues and get more Republican voters to choose to care about them more than the ones they are caring about now. And that means reaching out in a friendly manner to talk with them, to make them allies on those issues.
This is why Hillary's deplorables comment went over so badly. Instead of asking people who leaned trump to vote for her, it confirmed to them that she is their enemy and they should vote against her, making them blind to Republicans' flaws even more.
Republican voters who really embrace the Republican agenda are probably not convertible. But polling shows that many Republican votes have more progressive positions, and the Republican Party is often against a majority of their voters on specific issues.
It's those voters we need to get to choose to care about other issues when they vote.
I think Bernie understands this and it's why he's touring red states to appeal to those voters on the issues they agree with progressives on.
We need to change a mindset that is so prevalent among many progressives and Democrats to treat Republican voters as only the enemy - to equate them with the terrible policies the Republican Party is fighting for, instead of recognizing how often the Republican Party is finding ways to appeal to those voters in spite of those policies.
Hug a Republican voter. Find the areas we agree. Get them to care more about those issues and less about Hillary's e-mail and whether Obama's birth certificate was a forgery. Don't compromise our value and policies to win them over, don't think that adopting centrist politics is the solution to win them over.
We won't agree on everything - but they don't agree with Republicans on everything, either.
It's up to Democrats to make the country's issue our move to plutocracy and to clearly be on the right side of the issue.
Comments
When Clement Attlee's Labour government
created the NHS in the UK after 1945, it covered everyone, whether racist, sexist, misogynist, rich, whatever, whatever. Universal care was key.
'Democrats' have to get beyond the identity crap and focus on what works for all, never mind 'deplorables'.
Chances of me hugging my soon-to-be divorced, oafish, boor of a Limbaugh-listening brother-in-law are probably about zero.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Vote? I'm confused...
Are we taking a trip in a time machine back to the pre-rigged, pre-hacked, paper ballot days of yore where our votes were part of the election process? Or are we pretending that 2016 didn't happen and the Department of Homeland security didn't take over our electoral system the last week Obama was in office?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That seems to be the axis
of what both sides revolve around, the slide into plutocracy. I searched around the web after release of the Trump tax plan and I could find no one supporting it. Even Breitbart and Zero Hedge called it a giveaway to the rich. Including the commenters on all sites were largely against the plan.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
I wonder if they would change their minds
if we tell them that this tax reform is going to kick "the slackers" off social programs? The hatred I read from them about this is almost as bad as they feel about abortion.
People who are working two jobs to survive, but still qualify for Medicaid need to apply themselves and work their way up to a better job. And people who want $15 an hour at their jobs at McDonald's need to realize that this job isn't supposed to be a career, it's a stepping stone to a better job. It doesn't matter that there aren't many other jobs for people who wasn't fortunate to go to college.
This is what I'm hit with every day in the deep red state of Utah.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
You're right, one guy does get it.
And here he is, in the belly of the beast:
And they were listening ...
If Bernie has the guts to go to Liberty University and speak to them, surely we could at least talk to our neighbors at the local grocery. What Sanders was saying resonated with many Americans, no matter what label they felt was hanging on their lapel. I never had so many who thought they were right-wingers (mostly because they had been told they were by Rush or Fox) come to me with questions about Sanders and his message. They all wanted to know more. All were happy to listen to me quietly explain his points -- no yelling, no accusatory tone, no condensation -- adult American to adult American. It works more often than you might imagine.
Thanks for the essay, Craig234.
"Win them over"? You must be a democrat.
The democratic party is part of the opposition in the class war, an opponent in the upcoming revolution. I agree many republican voters, and more independent non-voters, can be won over to an independent working/lower class movement against the oligarchy and political duopoly.
As for trying to win Trump voters over to the democratic party, I saw an article about the DNC and one of their politicians, can't remember which short haired white dude it was, pondering the same thing, how to win over Trump voters.
That's a game many of us don't play anymore. The democrats have had their chance and the party has proven to be completely corrupted and useless.
Craig, welcome to c99. Your first essay bodes well
for more of the same.
We will never find anyone who agrees 100% with someone else. Not even amongst us die-hard (or walking dead Progressives) who agree with almost everything else in another progressive's platform. Should we fight them? No. We should discuss with them our differences. The same is true of our conservative counterparts, MANY OF WHOM already agree with us on some issues--MFA/SP being the prime example. Instead of berating them HRC-style for the differences, let us in fact emphasize the similarities. Most conservatives/independents agree on health care as a right. Even Republican congress critters are feeling the heat on this from their Republican Constituents. If those Republican constituents could be persuaded to vote for another Republican favoring MFA/SP (as rare as that might be) it would be better for our whole agenda than the election of another establishment Democrat. At least there would be in place a Republican who believes in something we progressives do. Republicans are feeling the heat on this. Some will yield to the momentum. Let's hope it is evidenced in 2018.
@Alligator Ed Thank you (this is
Thank you (this is actually my second, both today). I agree - and so much is about what we get voters to care about when they vote.
Do they vote based on whether they like 'corrupt Hillary' and her e-mails or not?
Or do they vote on whether they want universal healthcare and everyone to share in prosperity?
When Republicans were in the minority, they could claim to be all kinds of populist. Now that they're in the majority, they're trapped having to vote for their plutocratic agenda.
It's up to the progressives to get the country to hold them accountable and expose the con job they're so guilty of.
And if we don't, there's no guarantee democracy will be in place to do it later.
Con jobs and democracy
I think zoebear and Big Al addressed those issues in their comments above.
Love your writing style and ideas!
However you seem to only be speaking of Republicans, thus ignoring the reality of the two party duopoly that is strangling us.
Three Republicans just saved millions from losing their insurance. A Democratic President left radical covert war making power to Trump.
Why not consider focusing on the issues in a post partisan way instead of the clearly obsolete Rs vs Ds ?
Thanks for the essay.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
@divineorder @divineorder Thank you for
Thank you for the nice comments.
I'm not ignoring the duopoly, but rather viewing it as undefeatable and needing to work within it, by taking over the Democratic Party and defeating the Republicans.
You mention three Republicans saved us from healthcare repeal.
I'd say that 48 Democrats saved us; that 48-0 fomr Democrats and 3-49 for Republicans makes the party difference quite clear.
And it's even more clear when you note that of the three, one did it for the right reasons, one because the repeal wasn't ENOUGH of a repeal, and a third for arcane reasons but supportive of it.
These is a strategic question people here differ on - whether to try to win by defeating both parties, or by winning from within the Democratic Party.
But I don't think the focus on opposing the Republicans is obsolete, even while we have to also defeat the much lesser problems (zero Democratic Senators supporting repeal) problem Democrats.
Whether from within or without the party.
And I don't think there is likely any way to win from outside both parties, as preferable as that would be if we could.
There's probably a lesson from Henry Wallace. As FDR's socialist VP, he was the country's second most popular politician after FDR and had the strong support of the party's membership to be re-nominated in 1944. The party bosses wanted a more 'corrupted' candidate and forced him off; he ran in the next election as the Progressive Party nominee and got 4% of the vote.
For that matter, when the very popular Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party progressive, he couldn't win again either.
The chances of voters being "convinced" by
standard rhetoric from politicians of either Party, are low and getting lower. It is not a fluke that neither Trump nor Sanders were representative of their respective Parties. In fact they both campaigned against the two Party establishments, and they were both phenomenally successful.
More than a few Trump voters respected Sanders' inegrity, and might well have voted for him, had he won the nomination. I see a number of indications that conservative voters are fed up with the Republican Party establishment. And just as many indications that progressive voters would be ready to jump the D ship, if a suitable Candidate were to emerge. It's worth remembering that both Trump and Sanders came out of nowhere, and had less than zero Party support.
native
@native I think those are
I think those are very good points - but also that both Sanders and trump are anomalies more than models.
Do progressives really have another Bernie Sanders who can be as effective as he is at national politics?
I hope we have one who can win, but I don't see one who is comparable, or who could have done what Bernie did toward advancing 'Democratic Socialism'.
The right can elect more radicals, but trump had some unique advantages with decades of national fame, including a tv show, and years of buildup such as being the leading birther.
I expect the parties are a lot more able to put up phony versions to get votes - remember, Hillary is a progressive! - than the 'outsiders' usually are to overcome the money advantages of parties.
It sort of happened in 2016, but there were unique situations.
One danger we have is that a big part of why trump ran and the Republican road to victory are these billionaire donors who can single-handedly radicalize and dominate the Republicans.
Those big donors are why the Republicans humiliated themselves with yet another attempt to repeal healthcare. It wasn't for the Republican voters.
Maybe it's true that the phenomena
of Trump and Sanders were both "unique situations"... which is to say, unrepeatable. But this is not my sense of the national mood and temper. It seems to me that the rank and file of both Parties have grown increasingly restive, and prone to open revolt. I guess we'll have to wait and see how things develop.
native
@native I agree with you
I agree with you there's a strong national sentiment in the Sanders and trump directions.
It's just not clear how or if that will pan out in future elections.
I think we can draw the wrong lessons - for example, from Jeb Bush crashing and burning with huge name recognition and spending, while those things usually WILL win.
Despite Bush, it still takes billions to win the presidency, and over 90% of Congressional races go to the candidate who spent the most.
If political office is as you suggest,
normally granted to the highest bidder, the election process would seem to resemble an auction as much as a democracy.
native
@native The way I put
The way I put this is that we've gone from one person, one vote toward one dollar, one vote.
"Toward"? We're already there,
legitimized by a corrupt Supreme Court.
So now what?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven I think
I think economically, we need to organize as a nation around the issue of egalitarianism versus plutocracy.
And doing that includes organizing around the political issue of moeny being allowed to dominate in our politics.
Unfortunately we'r not close to getting these done - Bernie is by far our best advance on them. We're a lot closer to the opposite - Republicans can almost amend the constitution rather than us.
So, we need to be trying to get people organized around those issues to support candidates who will support those policies.
I actually have one idea how to help do that I might write about here at some point.
Who's "we"? That point needs more defining
I hope you're not mistaking me for a Democrat - I left that party long ago, after it left me for the Super-Rich.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven Don't
Don't worry, I wasn't saying you are in the dirty icky Democratic Party.
By we, I was referring to everyone who supports these polices - Democrats or not.
What is unique is that people are hurting
and neither of the two major parties is going to do anything about it. This year offered the Democratic party an opportunity to win and win big simply by standing up for the people and actually doing something about it.
Here is the problem. Obama sold the people on "hope and change" but he and the Democrats failed to even try to deliver anything really substantive. The Democratic party stands for nothing any more other than empty rhetoric. What made Bernie Sanders so popular is that he spoke to the real issues facing Americans today. Trump also did the same but to a lesser extent. And Clinton attended high priced fund raisers. Bernie spoke the truth. Trump lied. And Clinton acted as if everything was hunky dory because it was her turn.
No one in either party is actually listening to the people and willing to commit themselves to work toward that end. Our government is corrupt and the people now see it clearly. This is why election turnouts are going down. The people see that the politicians do not care unless you have big money to donate.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I agree with everything
you say here, as I usually do. I also think the time is ripe for a fire-breathing reformer to burst upon the scene. One who is neither a D nor an R.
native
@native In our modern
In our modern system, though, the two party nominees have billions of dollars and the infrastructure and organization of a party. What does the firebrand have to compete?
This is why we need systemic reform such as getting money out of elections and public financing; in the meantime, it's not very feasible.
Feasible or not, I think it's all we have left
The current corrupt power structure is not going to enact systemic reforms or get money out of politics; the reason they exist is to maintain this gravy train for the wealthy. So it's chicken and egg... the parties cannot be defeated until after they reform themselves? Ugh, then we are doomed for sure.
I think Bernie's campaign showed there is a groundswell now of people who are ready to demand some of that hope and change Obama talked about, and Bernie put some of that into concrete terms - healthcare for all, a living wage, addressing income inequality and justice. Yes, Bernie left out a lot of the wishlist and priorities most of us have, and focused like a laser on a few key points, but he did tap into a river of energy that I'm not anyone knew was there. Trump did the same, but he tapped into a negative energy of racism, nationalism, and being an asshole, which apparently appeals to a lot of people as well.
But I just read today that kasich is threatening to leave the Republican Party. They are having their own civil war like the democrats are. Both parties are losing the people. I support that trend.
The past isn't necessarily prologue. What hasn't worked before might work in the future, if influencing factors have changed, and I think they have. People see that this is all not working. I don't imagine the duopoly will go easily or immediately, but I also don't think they are immortal. Their time is coming. I'm doing my bit to help that along.
There's a local election coming up, I noticed a sign for a city counsel candidate proudly proclaiming he's an independent candidate- not dem or republican. I have no idea what his goals or ideology are, but his rejection of the parties is enough to make me look into him at least. I refuse to believe that we have to accept the status quo. Just can't do that anymore, speaking for myself.
@CS in AZ I think
I think what's agreed on here is that the issue is plutocracy - the few at the top taking all the wealth and power.
I think there's agreement that the Republicans are highly corrupted by them - and that the Democrats are at least too corrupted by them (some view the amount higher than others).
The challenge is in how to fight them.
The first step perhaps is in simply changing this from being a one-sided war. The wealthy have a huge organization fighting for their interests. But many Americans are just 'apolitical'.
But after that, the questions include whether it's more effective to try to build a third party - including how many would jump from the party to it if it became viable - or whether it's more effective to try to take over the Democratic Party. Note I didn't say 'wait for it to reform itself', which we agree is not likely to ever happen on its own - but use democracy to take it.
Agree with your point, but
from my observation from two locales, in which we're surrounded by conservatives in both locations--my sense is that DT supporters are specifically fed up with the Republican Establishment, as in Paul Ryan and McConnell--not DT.
Aside from a small sliver of DT supporters (mostly among the white college-educated DT voters), I don't see DT's supporters joining hands with Democrats to form a coalition--especially since Schumer and Pelosi represent (in their eyes) even more and worse crony capitalism, and corporatist neolberalism (globalists) than their two despised Republican leaders--McConnell and Ryan.
Years ago, I would occasionally listen for an hour or so to Limbaugh, to see what 'the enemy' was up to. I can tell you that he has always despised McCain. As a matter of fact, I feel certain that it was (partly) the fact that Rush derided him as a liberal for so long, constantly comparing him to the Dem Party Leadership--with some justification, actually--that McCain lost to O.
Bottom line, unless I've missed it, Democrats, with all of their so-called 'messaging,' still aren't coming up with an agenda that attracts the bulk of DT supporters. Whether or not it's a realistic promise, DT promised his supporters a revival of decent manufacturing jobs--which is 'what' many of them care about. As for the Dem Party Leadership, all they keep promising is more 'jobs programs.' So, where are all these apprenticeships, and/or no or low cost training programs that Dems keep promising? Oh, sorry, I forgot--that's just 'messaging.'
Mollie
"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
@Unabashed LiberalSo, where are all
You do understand that they're not in power and can't pass anything until they are?
Though I'm not sure how much value 'low cost training programs' have as a policy.
And WON'T pass anything WHEN they are n/t
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven Have you ever
Have you ever seen the list of hundreds of bills Nancy's House passed at the end of Bush's presidency that the Republicans in the Senate blocked? A huge list of good things.
Kabuki, just kabuki
The Democorrupt party only proposes things when they know there's no chance of them ever becoming law because the Republicorrupt party won't pass them.
That game has been going on, administration after administration, for far too long.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven That's why
That's why the Civil Rights Act/Voting Act, why the ACA, why the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and so much more never became law.
Nice try
The Civil Rights Act was passed under Lyndon B. Johnson, way back in 1964. Johnson was a real Democrat, New Deal variety, and a real arm-twister.
The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, ditto ditto and ditto.
As for the "Affordable" (hahahahahahaha) Care Act, it was pre-compromised, watered down, and then compromised some more, in the name of getting "some Republicans" to vote for it. In the crunch not one Republican did, and it had to be shoved through under "reconciliation". And even then, not one single thing has ever been done to improve it, and it's been slowly chipped away at.
The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was almost toothless by the time it was finally passed, and has been subjected to extractive dentistry ever since.
Absolutely no comparison with the achievements of that hard-shelled old SOB, LBJ.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven Nice
Nice try.
'The Democrats never propose unless they know it won't become law' becomes changing the subject.
You're not at DKos any longer
You won't get a consensus on anything except "The situation we are in sucks". And if you try blanket statements conflating past successes with present...incremental nibbling, you will be called on it.
Bottom line: don't try to herd cats.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven You
You made a statement, it was wrong, and you're trying to talk about anything else. This has nothing to do with comparing the 1960's and now - that's your topic.
I was being more comprehensive because you made a blanket statement about Democrats, so I included different time frames. If you meant Democrats today, qualify your statement to Democrats today.
If you meant that Democrats WILL pass what you consider compromised legislation, then say that instead of saying they won't pass ANY legislation. Etc.
Have fun storming the castle n/t
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
The Other Maven, have I told you lately, that I love you?
You seriously rock!
Thumbs up
Yes, I fully understand that. I also understand
that, generally speaking, 'they're useless as teats on a boar hog.'
Seriously, we'll just have to 'agree, to disagree' on this topic, I suppose.
Mollie
"I think dogs are the most amazing creatures--they give unconditional love. For me, they are the role model for being alive."--Gilda Radner
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
Fences For Fido
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
@Unabashed Liberal OK, but I don't
OK, but I don't think there's much question that they can't pass anything without some Republicans helping now, meaning basically nothing.
Hell , I was just wondering if the Clinton Creature and the
Kid ever made it back to Flint.
She cared about those people as long as it made a good sound bite. The great social justice warrior. Bwahahaha!. She milked that tragedy, for all it was worth. Both her and that lying kid of hers.
That is the true face of Dimocrites, a bunch of lying opportunists who's only goal is to pad their own nests.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Unions
Unions are one of the most effective ways of getting people from diverse political backgrounds to join together and elect candidates that represent working people, not the employer. The Republican party has always opposed unions and has been busy passing anti-union legislation in many states because they know there is strength in numbers. The Dems do a pretty good job proposing pro-union legislation at the state level, but at the Federal level unions have gotten mostly crumbs from the Dems for years. The Democratic party lost too many union members to the Republican party when they quit concentrating on bread and butter issues. There's no excuse for states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, and Kentucky to pass anti-union legislation. How did the Democrats get so weak in these states that used to be so pro-union?
~Shrug~ I talk to conservatives all the time
Why wouldn't I? They are not my enemy. They and I have some different opinions about some issues. But in large part we agree on this business of whether government should serve it's people or not. My standard line is, "How about we band together to regain control of our government? Then, once our vote matters again, we can resume our bickering about bathrooms."
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Conflating different things here
I think you're conflating two entirely different things, and defining the problem in a way that's not completely constructive.
Your first sentence, "Find the areas we agree", sounds good. To me, this is a big part of what reaching out to the other side involves. It doesn't require either side to compromise their core principles. Just that they find issues they agree on and work together to find a mutually acceptable way of getting it done.
But this has nothing to do with trying to get people to care less about certain things. I'm not sure how you could do that effectively. For one thing, caring about something involves emotions and emotional reactions, which are by definition irrational. It is very difficult (impossible?) to change another person's emotions. Making someone "not care" about subject X is not a good way to go about getting what you want.
What you *can* do is direct their attention away from the thing they care about that is causing trouble for you, and re-direct it to things that you mutually care about.
In doing this, it's important to avoid triggering a reminder of the thing they care about.
Prime example: rank and file conservatives detest Hillary Clinton, with every fiber of their being. They have been trained to hate her over the past 25 years. This is a fact, plain and simple. Right or wrong, this is how it is, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. You. Cannot. Make. Them. Not. Detest. Hillary. Clinton.
If you don't want to trigger a Republican's intense hatred of Hillary Clinton, then do not do anything to remind them of her. For Dog's sake, do not nominate her for president. That's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Likewise, do not nominate any big-city neoliberal Dem establishment "identity politics" candidates, such as Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, and expect Republican voters not to think of Hillary. Do not send out supercilious Dem Party old-timers, such as Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, and expect them not to think of Hillary.
If you want them to focus on universal health care, which is already an area of mutual agreement among a wide swath of American voters, then focus on universal health care yourself. Identify key players --politicians and others -- who can and will act with integrity to advance universal health care. "With integrity" means they believe strongly in universal health care and will work toward it because it's what the American people want and need; they don't just give it lip service in order to get elected.
If you were really smart and lucky, you'd find key players whom Republican voters already admired and trusted. Maybe even one who was already on board with universal health care and, in fact, was leading the way. Maybe a politician who has decades of reaching across the aisle.
I understand he hugs a lot, too.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
You have the key to the issue in your comment
This is exactly what MUST happen. To not overcome divisiveness at least on some issues will never be a winning policy--as the HilBots have proven so well with Berners. Yeah, he does hug a lot.
@Centaurea I think you misunderstood
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
I wasn't saying 'talk to them about the things they hate about Democrats and change their views' as you seem to think I was saying.
I was discussing changing what they care about in deciding who to vote for, by getting them to care about things other than things like Hillary's e-mail.
In other words, I was describing what you suggested:
Where we don't agree is in your demanding she not be nominated. If she is, she is.
But at that point, by getting them to care about issues she is right on and Republicans are wrong on, they can overlook more and more of their hate for her, as they overlooked trump's flaws.
We agree that isn't easy because they're conditioned day in and day out to hate whoever Democratic leaders are, but there's not really another way I know of.
But trying that is different than what many do which is to attack those voters because of the policies their vote is helping.
trump attacked many groups to get votes - but one he never attacked were Hillary-leaning voters he
wanted to recruit. He said "lock her up" but did not insult her voters he wanted.
What was she right about?
>Single Payer? Nope!
>$15.00 min wage? Nope!
>Ending wars we were already eyeballs deep in? Nope!
>Not starting new wars? Nope!
>Same sex marriage? Only when eventually cornered, so not really.
>Civil Rights for POC? Well, she did "evolve" from bringing super predators to heel, when it benefited her. So, not really there either.
>Embracing the supporters of her opponents? Bwahahahaa! Nope!
>Refraining from playing the 'you're a sexist if you don't vote for me' card? Nope!
Exactly what was she right about?
@Deja That's a Bernie
That's a Bernie versus Hillary list; I'm with Bernie on every one.
The topic was a Hillary versus trump list.
Climate, environment, healthcare, dreamers, consumer protection agency, keystone XL, Supreme court appointments who are not the radical right, on and on and on, that's where she's right.
I'd widen that net a little
With regard to Hillary's private inclinations on pipelines, fraking, and TPP legislation that would make grassroots efforts to fight environmental destruction illegal.
(Hint: they're different than her public ones but the same as her donors).
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Well here's where I get off the crazy train
I told you yesterday, do this and you'll still be singing the blues on 11-4-2020.
Is that you Chuck Schumer?
Sheesh. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Please, don't accuse me of not understanding where you're coming from because I do. You are suggesting that we continue to support a 'party' of corporate centrists. Republicans are not going to suddenly start developing a social 'conscience'. And either is the Clinton Creature. That miraculous 'epiphany' of hers only happens temporarily and when she's on the campaign trail and she needs to swipe a more popular platform from the guy running against her because it is politically expedient. Pffffffft!
The 'folks' referenced below are her real constituency. And Wall Street royalty. And wealthy celebrities. (She's got a 'separate message' for the Great Unwashed. Because sausage making 'is messy' or something.
The reason we keep getting horrible people to vote for is because of the mistaken idea that voting for the LOTEs is somehow acceptable. That is absolutely batshit crazy. And regarding Clinton, we're not talking Lesser at all. Crazy Trump, in all his ineptitude and racism, is a disaster,. But do is Clinton. Clinton looks down on the plebs, sees them only as a source of votes and donations. She is backed by people who consider the plebs as an endless source of income for the corporate private prison system or as an unlimited source of warm bodies for the military while they try to prevent BRICS from becoming the world's new economic leaders. She had to be forced into supporting affordable healthcare or a livable wage only AFTER she saw that she was in the wrong side of the issue. The fact that she considers Henry Kissinger a good friend and he is one of her advisers is one of her biggest 'tells'.
We need a whole NEW party. We've been screwed over by Al From/Bill Clinton's Third Way Neo-liberal Koch-Brother-financed 'New' Democratic Party too many times. Have you not noticed that the left has lost over 1,000 national, state, and local offices? There's a reason for that. It's because the farking Dims keep trying to be Republicans.
EDIT: fixed ALL of the formatting!
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda Matthews I'm not exactly
I'm not exactly saying support a party of centrists. I'm saying fight them hard to take the party from them and make it a party of progressives.
But that if we don't win that fight in a primary, vote for the less bad candidate over the Republican.
Accepting all your criticisms of Hillary doesn't change that she is better than trump overall by a large margin and that her election is better for progressives.
That's the question - can a third party defeat both the Democrats and Republicans or will it only split the anti-Republican vote and hand them elections?
I think it's the latter.
So I agree on the goals that we want progressives to win elections; the debate is whether to do that from a takeover or a defeat of Democrats.
We don't agree on anything whatsoever.
I've already been told by those arrogant, worthless wastes of oxygen and real estate that they have the right to lie, cheat, and disenfranchise me. That i don't have any say in who they decide to back for office. Since that is the case, there is absolutely no reason for me and anyone else who got burnt by those rat bastids this last election to ever donate a dime or waste a vote on any Dim ever again. They can gather in their cigar smoke filled room and do whatever the hell they want to do (I certainly have a few suggestions for them), but I'm not stupid enough to go along with anything or anyone who thinks the Clinton Creature belongs anywhere near the White House. Or any SOB who says I am not entitled to a say in political process. So as Frank Zappa once said...
What about Demexit puzzles you? The largest block of eligible voters are 'Independents'. There's a good reason for that.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda MatthewsWe don't agree on
OK.
I think the Democrats have way too many corporatists. I think Hillary's views symbolized by her affinity with Kissinger are terrible and that she is wrong on not supporting single-payer.
Sorry you disagree with all those views.
You aren't against anything if you can live with
her ever being in a position of power again. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Millions aren't going to be herded back into the veal pen no matter what BS anyone starts slinging. We didn't get any say in the election, were called derogatory names by the candidate and her followers and flunkies, were insulted and lied to and when the party crashed and burned all of a sudden it was 'our fault. And we're supposed to vote for them and give them our hard-earned money? That's the kind of elitist, arrogant attitude that helped keep that foul old harridan out of the White House.
Isn't your plan to roundup some righties? Well, you'd best get hopping. Al From/Bill Clinton's Third Way Neo-liberal Koch-Brothers-Financed 'New' Democratic Party has absolutely no interests in changing their corporatist ways. And you're trying to convince people that the answer to all the problems in the 'party' are going to be solved by recruiting Republicans and getting them to support a supposed Progressive platform? One with a freaking social conscience? Hahahaha!! That's when I first started to smell gas. And I'm supposed to believe what a 'Lefty' you are? Democrats refuse to allow people like me have any say in the way the crooked bastids run the 'party'. But here you are trying get us to help in a Repubbie recruitment drive. The mind boggles.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda Matthews And you aren
And you aren't against anything if you wouldn't replace trump with Hillary.
I don't want Hillary in office - but I would prefer her over any of the Republicans who ran.
You seem to want nothing more than to vote for the best person you can find, and don't care at all if you're the only one who votes for them - who cares about winning an election?
I'm all for fighting for the best person you can find - that was Bernie for me - but when you have to make a choice, you have to make a choice. You chose to not fight trump, it sounds like.
Most Republicans aren't going to be recruited to a progressive candidate. But many are - more than enough to win. Why do you think twice as many independents supported Bernie than Hillary?
Perhaps our biggest fights is getting DEMOCRATS to vote for progressives but we can use R's also.
Dear gawd, you're actually campaigning for f*cking Killary 2020
How much are you being paid?
I'd watch the back of my head if I were you, and get a food tester too. Suicide by poisoning hasn't been used yet, but suicide by shot to back of the head is a tried and true ending to at least a few people who didn't measure up in her eyes. But no worries about your personal belongings - it's never a successful robbery either.
Smdh!
Edit add so it can't be changed by you:
@Deja I see I've run
I see I've run into someone who is quite lacking in the ability to post with any integrity - accusations of 'paid', accusations that I'd change my post for a wrong reason... for shame.
Smear the messenger - trried and true Hillbot tractic
As long as you use Hillbot tactics, you will be viewed as just another Hillbot. I suggest trying a different playbook.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven That's like
That's like me saying to you, as long as you use Nazi tactics, you'll be viewed as a Nazi. Did you use 'Nazi tactics'?
I did not use 'Hilbot tactics'. But if the truth is 'Hilbot' then you can say I used a 'Hilbot tactic'. But then you'd be the one needing a new playbook.
I understood exactly what you were saying
I understood exactly what you were saying.
What I was doing in my post was proposing that you look at the situation from a different perspective, so that you can more effectively get what you want. And by "get what you want", I am referring to the issues that you yourself care about. How can you best work with others to accomplish those things?
There are plenty of other ways to proceed. Seeing them will require mental flexibility; the ability to move your frame of reference outside of the one from which you're accustomed to viewing the world.
As long as you insist on finding a solution within the same old boxes and categories, it's going to be difficult for you to make progress. You're trying to bend the world to your will, to make it fit inside your boxes and give you what you want. This hasn't been working and it's not going to work.
The world is changing rapidly. We're operating in a new paradigm now. Trying to stuff it back into the old paradigm will not work.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
@Centaurea Thanks but what you
Thanks but what you wrote is a preface to suggestions - that were never made. It was sort of, there are other ways, and here they are: end of post.
Caitlin Johnstone has a new article in Medium
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/democrats-keep-rehabilitating-dubyas-...
Must there be a need of the Trump-haters to polish off the statues of former bad presidents? Now GWB, and WJC will be next. Still too close for comfort to HRC.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
@riverlover I think a reason former
I think a reason former presidents are rehabilitated, in addition to the natural of tendency to soften in their views after they're out of office, is that it's meant to help attack the current opponent - it's saying 'remember how much you hated that other guy? Well he's a lot better than the current guy!'
It's awfully hard to say to people 'you should despite the current guy, but the previous guy was worse'. So instead people tend to say 'the current guy is the worst in history'.
And polls tend to show that. They exaggerate the current president whether in good ratings or bad.
Though in trump's case he does happen to be the worst in history in many ways.
This is EXACTLY what LOTE voting leads to!
Which means "the current guy/gal" really is much worse. And you wonder why the country keeps going to hell in a handbasket?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven No, it means people
No, it means people tend to SAY the current guy is the worst whether he is or not. And in this situation, they have a good case.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see
I've had it up to here with the Three Monkeys world that apologists for the Democorrupt party want us to live in - "Speak no evil (of Democorrupts), hear no evil (of Democorrupts), speak no evil (of Democorrupts)".
I'm calling BOTH parties out as totally corrupt and rotten to the core. Like it or lump it.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven And I'm sick of
And I'm sick of people not telling the truth.
Tell the truth about all the negative things about the Democratic Party, and there are many.
The part you also need:
And don't say MORE than the truth about it.
Have fun storming the castle n/t
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Hard to believe there are still progressive voters
Who believe what neoliberals tell them to believe. Better to watch what they do and then make up your own mind. This one seems pretty self evident. Thanks for Caitlyn's link.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Political identity and issues
These are two distinct things in my opinion. Too much focus has and is being placed upon political identity, thus making voting a team sport. It does little to make our politicians accountable and it has become a way in which the people have lost a real voice in the outcomes of the issues that matter and should matter the most.
The founding of this site was based first and foremost on shifting the focus away from emphasizing political identity and making the focus upon the issues. The issues should drive voting first rather than political identity. The problem is that the issues have been totally lost and buried in our political landscape at nearly all levels.
I do not need to hug a conservative voter, but I want to talk with all people about the issues. I spent four and a half years participating in a local weekly Peace vigil in a relatively conservative area of our country. What I found from talking with (not to) many people over the years is that it is not hard to find commonality on many issues, including all the wars we are currently engaged in. It actually turned out to be easier than I originally thought. Regardless of our political self identification, we the people have far more in common with one another than we have our differences. It is those differences that the powers that be have exploited to keep us divided. We need to bridge that divide, but the problem is how do we do that to regain the power that rightfully belongs to us, the people.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
@gulfgal98 I didn't mean the word
I didn't mean the word hug literally. I meant talking to them in a respectful way and about
finding issues they would agree on, which is pretty much what you described.
That's in contrast to the idea some have that calling them racists over and over to get them to change their vote, because their vote does cause racist policies, is a good way to win them over.
Could you also please respond to
the main points of her comment ie relative importance of emphasizing political identity over issues? Thanks.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
@divineorder Hi, I'd be happy to.
Hi, I'd be happy to.
The way I look at it, is that there is good to emphasizing issues over identity. That's the 'right way' to do politics, it's what democracy is supposed to be.
I find it infuriating that we need women to be the advocates for women's rights, black people to be the advocates for black rights - what's right is right and shouldn't need the added component about fighting for it because it's benefiting themselves. People should instead act more on principle for everyone.
But he's the thing. That's the right goal, but in the meantime there are elections to win, and sometimes you have to ask, would you rather people vote the right way for the wrong reasons?
I think the answer to that should be 'yes'. Identity politics are unfortunately simply a powerful fact in politics. They can be ignored - like going to a duel and refusing to use a gun on principle while the other side uses one. They're part of winning elections - and they're not entirely wrong to use.
For example, if you support equal rights for black people and the other side doesn't, it's not exactly wrong to tell not only voters who support equal rights on principle, but to tell black voters in particular, that this is a reason to vote for your side. So, I guess I'd say, we should not compromise on principle - but we also want to win elections. Not at any cost, but identity politics are part of the culture until we have everyone voting for better reasons, which is a goal we should support but which won't be reached.
It might seem ugly to win with identity politics - but it's uglier for the people trying to pass terrible policies to win using identity politics because you didn't.
It's, in short, dealing with an imperfect set of voters. Are they better off being appealed to with identity politics - or lost as voters, if those are the only practical choices?
I'd say, do both. Lead with the issues - but include enough identity politics to not lose the voters who aren't responding to the issues.
Having said that, I'm talking about a limited role for identity politics. They can be abused, towards divisiveness and hate to get votes.
I've read thing on Daily Kos where the culture seems to be to not only fight for justice for disadvantaged groups, not only to use identity politics, but to have a feeling of hostility toward white men in particular simply for being white men. I just had a conflict there, where someone mentioned comments by a fire chief we all agreed were terrible where he said the NFL protesters should be killed for disrespecting our flag.
Someone seized on a secondary part of that, to insist that his phrase 'our flag' was clearly meant to exclude the black protesters from being Americans and say it wasn't their flag.
I responded that the phrase was ambiguous - whether it was meant to exclude or include the black protesters, the phrase would still fit of "our flag".
Some appreciated my comments, but others responded demanding that no, any defense of any charge against this guy was endorsing his call for killing the protesters. I was a racist for saying it.
(And the moderation there is making the issue a lot worse).
Identity politics should be used in a limited way - not to excess.
It might be possible to get more black votes, more women's votes, by trying to stoke their fury to an extreme leading to hatred, but I think that's wrong even if effective.
Some know no such boundaries.It's a hard line to draw, because anger is justified against injustice, and it's often correctly identified as injustice to certain groups.
Advocating for 'black rights' when black rights are violated is right, and it's inherently going to appeal to a certain amount of identity politics.
Political realities are to deal with voters where they are, while leading with trying to make issues what are important, not identity.
I guess I'm setting the issue up this Goldilocks way:
- No identity politics: ignore the disproportionate effects of issues, lose votes and elections for no good reason, in the name of a sort of 'purity'
- Some identity politics: the right combination of acknowledging the disproportionate effects, the power of appealing to affected groups benefiting from your policies
- Too much identity politics: creating mobs to win elections based on hatred and supporting wrongs and injustices in response to wrongs and injustices
Perhaps these crude examples would be illustrations:
The 'no identity' message: "Studies find black Americans disproportionately the victims of excessive police violence. For the cause of justice, support our call for reform."
The 'some identity message: "I understand the problem - you face the threat of injustice every day, and I want to fight for reforms to improve things for you."
The 'too much identity message: "The pigs are trying to kill you. Fight them. Vote for me and I'll make them sorry and cry like babies when they find out what it's like to pay."
I suspect what I'm responding to is people who see too much identity politics and are asking for pulling back from that, and improving things to a more issue-based politics.
I'm all for that as a goal, but think too much 'purity' on the issue is not only unjustified, but wrong to do if it helps bad policies to get elected.
Thanks. it's on you to make the supported with evidence
case for this:
That focus has led to Republicans in control of statehouses and governorships across the country, as well as in Congress now.
Duopoly is the problem here. Not a question of purity at all.... but getting things accomplish through government on a wide array of issues that are identity free.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Political Identity, not Identity Politics
I didn't see Gulfgal talking about "identity politics" in her post. She referred to "political identity". I interpreted that to mean political party affiliation.
In your post and comments, you focus a lot on what Democrats should do to get Republicans to vote for Democrats. Many of us here at c99 are neither Republican nor Democrat, and thus are not concerned with getting votes for the Democratic party. That's not our frame of reference.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
@Centaurea I understand and
I understand and respect that. While I don't see any way for third party to work, I hope my comments apply to either voting for Democrats OR for a progressive non-Democrat.
Response to gulfgal's comment
asked if you would respond to Gulfgal's comments regarding political identity.
You replied by addressing identity politics, which is a different matter. Do you have a response pertaining to political identity?
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Oh damn! The 'too much purity' Schlick.
That makes this even better!
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda Matthews I guess you
I guess you would have preferred Bernie to run as an independent, get 1% of the vote, and not endorse Hillary. Much better, that fixes everything!
Don't give up your day job Kreskin.
You don't have the faintest damn idea what I wanted. What I really wanted was for Sanders to do what was right and expose the Dims cheating and telling them to go screw themselves. I wanted him to stand up for the people who supported him. That he was going to go all the way. The fact that he endorsed that crusty corrupt old crone showed that we still have a lot of work to do before we flush the liars and cheats of the Al From/Bill Clinton's Turd Sayers down the proverbial poop chute.
Funny, you never discuss the cheating. You tap dance all around the issue but the lies and cheating, you never mention. You do NOT get to tell me that I should support a bunch of lying, cheating, corrupt shits who have told me to fuck off and go away because I am not needed. (Oops I guess I am now though, huh?) They've said they have the right to go into a cigar smoke-filled room and chose whoever they want and I either support THEIR candidate of choice or I have no right to participate in the primary and that I DIDN'T HAVE ANY BUSINESS EXPECTING AN HONEST PRIMARY IN THE FIRST PLACE. I guess you think the money grubbing old warmonger should have just been crowned like she (and her idiot supporters) thought she would be. (How do you like being told what you think?)
And Hell no I didn't want him to endorse that lying wretch. I didn't want him giving cover to Wasswenan-Schitz or Brazile or any of the other lying scum that run the DNC. But like the Clinton Creature said when she was covering for the gun running program to al Nusra and al Quada out of Benghazi...
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda Matthews Kreskin, you
Kreskin, you're the one who started with the 'what you want' statements - I returned it. The exchange has become useless with your hostility and I didn't read the last. Call it a day.
Thank you . That will free up your time to attemp to gaslight
someone else.
EDIT TO ADD you never did bring up the lies and cheating. Nice way to dodge the issue. I wouldn't expect anything else.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
This is exactly the type
of conversation that needs to take place at conservative sites in a badly needed way.
Essentially, we have one side wishing to sue for peace, while the other is still at war.
Figuring out how to overcome this is our biggest challenge, IMHO.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
I'm afraid to try
Even on a platform as mundane as Disqus, I'm afraid to go too far down the rabbit hole. I get defensive when I read something like, "You're to [sic] stupid to know it. Lib nigger." (I'm actually combining 2 comments by same person.)
How do you have any type of conversation with something like that?
I tried, in vain, on Facebook with a right wing relative when it came to the god forsaken NFL.
I suck at it. Plus, I'm not like either of those two people in that I don't think you are less human or a traitor for not sharing my views to an exact T.
@Deja @Deja It's not easy,
It's not easy, but someone has to do it.:)
It is easier in person
than on line. I was actually amazed at how many productive conversations we had at our weekly Peace vigil with self described conservatives, some of whom were very angry when they first approached us.
I found two key things that helped. First, we tried very hard not to be judgmental, but tried to keep the conversation on things that appealed to most conservatives, such as the exorbitant cost of these wars, instead of focusing on the moral issue which can be a shut down point. The second, maybe the most important thing, is that it had to be a real conversation in which we listened to them and why they felt the way they did. It allowed us an opening to learn what is important in their thought processes and allowed us to speak to them on that level first.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I understand the hearing back, and some acknowledgement
of a different viewpoint. I also know some ways to gather more talking points. No one appreciates lectures from on high.
Typing in pedant-speak, good night.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
It is easier in person
The anonymity of the net gives them huge balls. In person they are much more.....er civil.
Question; who is more courageous, one who walks around in public with a gun in their belt, or one who is unarmed?
In other words, if you don't frighten them, you CAN talk to them face to face.
But if they know you are unarmed, their balls start growing, proportionate to your size.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.