A Big Tent Divided...

It's hard to get too excited about national electoral politics right now. At the moment it doesn't seem like much of an avenue for the sort of radical change that is needed to make the political system work for the 99% again. The game is rigged, the 1% control the parties and through the parties and a compliant corporate media, the choices available to the 99%.

Could the 99% take back the political system, purge the money power from it and flush out the politicians that form the "coalition of the bribed?"

Yes, we can. It's still a numbers game - and we have the numbers. But the 99% would have to play hardball, and that seems unlikely to happen.

A whole range of opinion-makers from captured journalists to partisan political activists and even bloggers promote the demobilization of the voting public. They urge acceptance of a broken political party and a tradeoff of action on some social issues in exchange for supporting politicians driving a corrupt, neoliberal, warmongering, anti-civil liberties, anti-environmental agenda.


The Democratic Party marginalizes progressives

The Democratic Party puts on a good show for progressives, it's compelling viewing. However, despite the fact that progressives like Elizabeth Warren grab the headlines, it's clear that progressives are marginalized in the party:

Democrats are relatively free to antagonize their ideological core supporters. After 34 House Democrats voted against healthcare reform in 2010, progressives vowed revenge, but all 30 anti-Obamacare Democrats who sought reelection won their primaries. Conservative Democrats like former Senators Ben Nelson and Max Baucus drove liberals crazy, but they never faced a primary challenge. The architects of the Democrats' House and Senate electoral strategies, former Representative Rahm Emanuel and Senator Chuck Schumer, built Democratic majorities by recruiting business-friendly centrists to run—and the party bosses hardly ever had a problem getting their favored candidates safely through to the nomination.

Why is it so easy for Democrats to marginalize progressives? There are three reasons, numbers, influence and money. First, the easy one, numbers. The article quoted above describes the composition of the Democratic party this way:

Just 43 percent of Democrats call themselves liberal. Until 2007, liberals weren't even a plurality of Democrats—more were moderates—and even today, liberals are outnumbered by moderate and conservative Democrats. Note that there are about four times as many conservative Democrats as liberal Republicans. Liberals are increasing—their overall share of the American electorate this year, 23 percent, marked an all-time high in Gallup's polling.

The second reason is more complex. It's about who pulls the levers of power and controls the resources of the Democratic party. Matt Stoller, in a post-mortem article about the 2014 "shellacking" of Democrats says this about the party's analysis of what went wrong:

Everything is put on the table, except the main course — policy. Did the Democrats run the government well? Are the lives of voters better? Are you as a political party credible when you say you’ll do something?

This question is never asked, because Democratic elites — ensconced in the law firms, foundations, banks, and media executive suites where the real decisions are made — basically agree with each other about organizing governance around the needs of high technology and high finance. The only time the question even comes up now is in an inverted corroded form, when a liberal activist gnashes his or her teeth and wonders — why can’t Democrats run elections around populist themes and policies? This is still the wrong question, because it assumes the wrong causality. Parties don’t poll for good ideas, run races on them, and then govern. They have ideas, poll to find out how to sell those ideas, and run races and recruit candidates based on the polling. It’s ideas first, then the sales pitch. If the sales pitch is bad, it’s often the best of what can be made of an unpopular stew of ideas.

Then Stoller explains his theory about why populists aren't more common in the Democratic Party. It's about who invented the modern party apparatus, Al From. Al From's DLC built the current organization.

The current generation of Democratic policymakers were organized and put in power by people that don’t think that a renewed populist agenda centered on antagonism towards centralized economic power is a good idea.

Stoller's article is rich with detail about how the Democratic Party became a neoliberal party funded by business interests and hedge-fund billionaires. One might even get the idea part way through the article that the Democrats have already had their Tea Party challenge (from wealthy business-funded radicals) and the Tea Party won:

Over the course of the late 1980s, the DLC continued its attack on the orthodoxy of the populism that had residual power in the party. The DLC’s Chairman, Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, said it clearly in an influential speech during this period. “The New Deal consensus which dominated American politics for 50 years has run its course.” ...

“Make no mistake about it,” wrote From in a memo about his organization’s strategy, “what we hope to accomplish with the DLC is a bloodless revolution in our party. It is not unlike what the conservatives accomplished in the Republican Party during the 1960s and 1970s.”

On to the third reason why progressives are easily marginalized by the party - money. Politics runs on it. The people put into positions of power in the Democratic Party control the party's purse strings. This gives their preferred candidates a huge leg up over progressive challengers.

Money also provides a means for the Party's preferred large-donor corporate johns clients to manipulate party policies and internal politics. Like this:

Representatives from Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party’s tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.

Bank officials said the idea of withholding donations was not discussed at a meeting of the four banks in Washington but it has been raised in one-on-one conversations between representatives of some of them. ...

Citigroup has decided to withhold donations for now to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over concerns that Senate Democrats could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power, sources inside the bank told Reuters. ...

JP Morgan representatives have met Democratic party officials to emphasize the connection between its annual contribution and the need for a friendlier attitude toward the banks, a source familiar with JP Morgan’s donations said.


There is a way for progressives to take the party back

Populists/progressives/traditional liberals do have an option at their disposal to change the Democrats much like the gigantic (still impune - thanks Obama!) Wall Street banks and other wealthy and corporate donors do.

dollar influence

It's also a method that has been tried recently by the LGBT community with stunning results.

LGBT political donors, in a coordinated fashion, stopped supporting the party that was not supporting them. The netroots were active too, in a campaign called "Don't Ask, Don't Give," which was even supported by the (2009) Daily Kos.

Opensecrets has a good rundown of what happened with the money:

Gay Rights Political Donations Plummet Amid Contentious Congressional Session

The 2010 election cycle was the least prolific cycle for gay rights interests since 1990, with about $850,000 contributed from January 2009 through September, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. It’s a trend that some gay rights advocates attribute to decreases in two key areas: funding and visibility for their top causes.

But others say the sharp decline is a function of the Obama administration and Democratic-controlled Congress failing to deliver on campaign promises to gay rights supporters.

Overall contributions from people and political action committees associated with gay rights interests dropped more than 58 percent from the $2 million invested in the 2006 elections, based on a preliminary analysis of campaign finance records by the Center for Responsive Politics. Consistent with past elections, 95 percent of gay rights-oriented campaign contributions during this election cycle went to Democratic candidates.

While donations from PACs — such as the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans — dropped noticeably during the 2010 election cycle, donations from individuals associated with these interests took a nose-dive as well, falling from more than $1.1 million during the 2006 election cycle to just $151,000 so far this go around.

But more than just money, the LGBT community gave the Democrats hell:

Gay Voters Angry At Democrats Could Sway Election

Volunteers who've been calling the 18,000 or so members of Equality Illinois to urge them to vote have been getting an earful. Many members say they won't vote or will vote against incumbents, regardless of their party affiliation or stance on gay issues.

This year's election is a stark contrast to 2008, when the gay community turned out in droves to elect Obama and help Democrats regain control of Congress.

"People were clamoring and very excited about the change that then-candidate Obama promised America," Garcia said. "Now I see lethargy at best and disgust at worst." ...

"The message is huge: Don't take us for granted."

There is a message here for progressives:

Obama and Gay Marriage: A Lesson for All Progressives and the Obama Campaign

We were told by the Democratic strategists and the campaign pollsters, the Democratic establishment, that coming out for marriage equality would be harmful to the president. The establishment pundits, gay and straight, were defending the White House, giving the president a pass, as were the establishment gay groups. The DNC's openly gay treasurer, Andy Tobias, continually defended the president's record and continually predicted disaster if he were to go further on LGBT rights.

But the opposite has happened. I've strongly pushed against the idea, now posited by some of those very same establishment gay pundits, that Obama came out for marriage equality because of some kind of special bond he has with the gay community, mostly because it obscures the hard, strategic work of grassroots and netroots activists who pressured the president in the face of resistance from many in the LGBT leadership who were giving the president a pass.

Check this out:

gallup libruls

So here's some good news. If Gallup is correct and about 44% of the Democratic base is "liberal," then if some reasonably large portion of those liberals were to stop donating, stop supporting and start giving the Democrats hell - the Democrats might just evolve. The numbers of people who self-identify as liberal probably dwarfs the numbers of LGBT individuals in the party. If that bloc decided to crash the gates rather than polish them, change could occur.

Possible yes. Probable? Heh.


Progressives remain marginalized by choice

It's not like the idea that people can organize and resist entrenched power by asserting their right to say, "no I won't vote for you, donate to your campaign, get out the vote, etc. until you clowns do what we demand," is some sort of new thing. Further, most progressives/liberals/populists didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

Progressives know that the party needs them and can't win elections without them. If they are unwilling to use their leverage as a group - then they are unworthy of the label progressive.

So, when your Democratic politicians start doing decidedly unprogressive things from incinerating people with flying death robots to cutting the medicare benefits of the elderly and disabled to attempting to grand bargain away people's social security benefits or cutting food stamps for the poor, just to mention a few examples - progressives know what to do and they have the means to do it.

Progressives have the means, but do they have the will?

It's a choice.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

shaharazade's picture

(I just love saying that) I don't think so. I know a lot of Democratic liberals in real life, in fact no one else tolerates my radical lefty blather. Anyway all the liberals I know, except a few like me who are considered over the top and too out there, still cling to the propaganda that is spewed via all the 'news' sources. They are like dkos'ers all wrapped up in hating the lunatic RW and the divisive culture wars. I'm sort of middle class, at least not living in poverty yet, but most people in my community and family are professionals who are doing okay to middling. They are afraid that under the Republicans it would be worse. It just might but I doubt it. On every so called social level and domestic level it's pretty bleak. Lot's of Democratic voters buy into the 'free market' unfettered capitalistic 'inevitable' takeover.

Until conditions here in der Homeland get as bad as say Greece I think people of good spirit will continue to be hooked into the false Dems. vs. Rep. lines drawn. The media and powers that be have done a good job of diverting and promoting a binary divided culture. There are cracks in the facade as the most centrist 'moderate' Democratic couple (Clinton lovers) we have as friends invited us over to watch the 2012 election results and proceeded to Boo Obama's speech. Climate change seemed to be the 'issue' that really pissed them off. We have a tradition of watching the national election returns with these Democratic friends that goes back to Clinton's first win.

My neighbor down the street an environmental biologist and 'Democrat in theory' as he bills himself, fly's the flag off his porch at random times. I asked him why and his reply was because it says that the Republican's don't own it. It's much easier for Democrat's to blame everyone else for the reality we are living in. Many RW'ers did the same with Bush. It's hard to admit you've been had, bamboozed to this degree. Hard to admit that your democracy and party is a fraud of the highest order. Just my thought on why some ordinary people continue to support the Democratic party when it is so fucked up that it in a way makes it worse then the overt insane evil Repugs. I was appalled when the Green, Jill Stein, got under 5% of the vote in 2012. We voted for her as creepy as the Bain Mormon was Obama was nothing I could vote for. Goldman Sach vs. Bain is no choice at all and sadly if you pick GS you get a two fer. Clinton vs. Bush is positively surreal and Orwellian.

This is no Big Tent as the owners of the tent have made quite clear. The lefties are not allowed and are considered an enemy of the good, according to the powers that be and the true Dem. believers who just won't look at what is going down by by-partisanly. Anybody who thinks that the Dems have been obstructed needs to get there head out of the sand and follow this Machiavellian by-partisan cooked up storyline.

up
0 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

for the likelihood of the democratic base polishing the gates, i guess. B)

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

may be bashing the Democrats as being bystanders and enabler, who are responsible for accepting the 'free market' unfettered capitalistic 'inevitable' takeover, will work. May be a campaign to make them feel ashamed to be bystanders to the "takeover". Isn't that something they don't like to be? Bystanders and enablers? (Compare them to bad German bystanders in the Third Reich, that will work/s) They must feel guilty to have been the cause for making everyone's life more miserable on the long run.

I don't know enough Americans personally, so I am always baffled to hear what they supposedly believe in. You need to give us some solution and way to fight for changes that are for real.

Oh well... I won't give my money to campaigns anymore. I have not enough left for them, after their policies erased 1/3 of my nest egg, my home is not sellable and the electricity kills my budget. And the constant begging of the low income or poorer Democrats to donate their money feels to me more like an insult than a solution. Instead of convincing voters they will DEFINITELY fight to change the whole electoral system and campaign finances, they continue to work with the same system over and over and we dumb voters are supposed to believe each time in a different, better result. Yeah. RIGHT. That'll happen. Sure./s

up
0 users have voted.
LapsedLawyer's picture

outrageously awful in order to make the Dems look like they're on the side of working people, LGBT people, African-Americans, women, Latinos, et al. That way more "moderate" ways to discriminate and divide us can be pursued -- including the overuse and over-emphasis on PC behavior and speech*.

But as I've said before, I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic, so I don't let it get me down. The fight is what's important to me, because it's only through that fight that our aims, our goals and our values have any chance of being the norm.

I've also said it takes time. And patience. And organizing. We can't expect success by this coming election cycle or the next, or even the next after that. In fact, we shouldn't: Expectations distract us from our goal, and can lead to disappointment, despair, and even compromise of our principles just too eek out some sort of something that looks like "victory."

The way to counter the coming friendly fascism is with democracy and the fight for truly democratic values in work, life, and politics. And that message must be what we fight with: The ends justify but also condition and determine the means.

So no money to pols (easy enough said for me as money's a bit tight these days) and no door-knocking or street-beating or phone-banking for 'em, unless they join us in the streets and champion what we fight for and how we fight for it.

Elections are a fraud. Democracy is in the streets, at work, and at home.

*The GOS is particularly rife with this kind of maliciousness. Take me, e.g., still on TU time-out (and by choice by now) for having rec'd a comment that called HRC what all politicians, male and female, are when it comes to Wall Street/big business/corporations: Whores. (And yes, it was used in context and in conjunction with those words.) I feel that is a perfectly acceptable word to describe HRC, as well as WJC, BHO, Chuck Shumer and a whole host of Democrats. (Republicans aren't whores, imo -- they're up front about their beliefs and not at all afraid of boasting about enabling the rich to get richer.)

But maybe you think that word is a might strong and just a bit too sexist in HRC's case to be employed. I'd like to hear from you on it, as I've been thinking of getting my TU status back. So, let me know, 'k?

up
0 users have voted.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon

gulfgal98's picture

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with calling Hillary and nearly every politician in DC a Wall Street or Koch brothers whore. The term fits. But at GOS, language is how they keep the dissidents like us in check.

Some of us have walked away while others like myself prefer to still go there and keep our views alive. I play under their rules, but my points are very clear as to where I stand. So I think you should asked for your TU status to be reinstated if you are still interested in having your views known over there.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

LapsedLawyer's picture

but just can't tip, rec or HR comments, or embed videos. And given that I'm not a really prolific diarist, it just has seemed something of a game hardly worth the candle.

Still, it would be nice to let those of us (like you) who still contribute there that I find their comments insightful (and to lend support against the bogus HRs the 'bots (Obama- and Hillary-) level at those of us who are done for the most part with the Dem party, so I'll consider you're advice.

Thanks for responding.

up
0 users have voted.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon

Big Al's picture

I wouldn't give them my money if they paid me.

But I think trying to change the dem party is useless. For me, I don't believe this
system can ever be changed sufficiently to enable the other changes we need, like ending
imperialism, neoliberalism, gangster capitalism, private central banking, etc. So it's all
one, two three what are you fighting for.

up
0 users have voted.
Shahryar's picture

1. go to lumber yard, purchase wood block and some long beams
2. cut grooves in the beams to use as a guide
3. purchase large steel blade
4. purchase strong rope
5. attach rope to top corners of blade
6. slide blade into place between beams
7. attach beams to wood block so beams go straight up
8. pull rope so blade goes to top of beams, the blade pointing down
9. tell 1%-er there's a lot of money just on the other side of wood block...no, over there, you'll have to bend down to see it, just lean pver the block
10. let go of rope

up
0 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

the progressives/liberals/populists in the democratic party are marginalized by choice. they accept their status as second-class-citizens because the party tells them to and the media reinforces that. because they are a minority, they feel powerless and are willing to accept the crumbs that democrats feed them and go stand on the fringes of the tent as they are told.

this brainwashing is a problem for organizing both inside and outside of the party. while political minorities are not actually powerless, the brainwashing keeps a substantial number of people from standing up for their interests.

up
0 users have voted.
LapsedLawyer's picture

concerning this very topic: Take This survey and Shove It, concerning a survey of issues from the Dem party, each question being couched in terms of what Obama has done recently on his way out the door.

Her bottom line is priceless:

WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU DO ANY OF THIS WHILE DEMS CONTROLLED EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOV’T IN '08-'10?

SOME OF US SEE ALL THE WAY THROUGH YOUR ROT.

up
0 users have voted.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon

shaharazade's picture

gives people a sense that they are working pragmatically to establish an ever moving majority that will eventually be democratic and better then. How they reconcile what the Democrat's implement once they elect them is beyond my comprehension. I think they have become adept at double think. An interesting dove tail between your diary and gjohnsits below. They kind of cover the same issues which intersect as far as keeping Democrat's engaged in a process that is long dead and gone. Hillary vs. Bush is just nuts. Even on a local level the corruption of the Democrat's is a mind blower and yet people still vote them power. I just figure that if people keep giving their consent to the one party corporate state it can prevail. If it gets bad enough and it will they will have to let go of their delusional partisan beliefs. Maybe both sides suffer from Stockholm Syndrome and 'identify' with the captors they identify with in this binary rigged system.

up
0 users have voted.
chuckvw's picture

Schumer heads up the Senate. Queen Hillary heads the ticket. The values resistant bacilli have won. Put this party out of our misery. It must die before a new one can be born.

up
0 users have voted.

You should only listen to both sides when one side isn't totally full of shit. -Jim Jefferies

Perhaps people should start pushing the Pocket campaign, my name for the idea to keep the dollar in your pocket.

I think it is worth a try, given what you said.

Do we have a list of demands for the Democratic party? If not, I think we could develop some

up
0 users have voted.

Don't fight the stream - Tyr Anasazi

They tried to use it to kick me off dkos.

The bottom line is that they ignore us (lefties, unions, et al) because they can. We're like battered wives. They beat the living hell out of us and then hand us flowers at election time and promise us the moon. They know they don't have to watch their backs so they are free to pursue monied interests.

I think we need to take a two by four to the backs of their heads. If we take a few of them out by voting for Republicans (if that's what it takes), then I think we do it and flaunt it. Taking out Lieberman (Rahm now or during the main election I hope) sends a message. You want our vote, you'll god damn earn it. Will Republicans make it worse? Sure as hell. But I think we need to give the GOP and the Dems and their voters exactly what they asking for.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

NCTim's picture

I have checked out of the rat race and will have to be cold and hungry before I will participate. I was just a number on a spreadsheet. Under appreciated and treated poorly. I worked long hours and spent many nights away from home. The only benefit was participating in the consumer economy, and that is counter productive.

Now I spend my time taking care of my Sweetie, hitting the gym, playing guitar, maintaining the household, navigating the bureaucracy and stopping by C99. Today's agenda, made Sweetie's breakfast, cleaned up the kitchen, I have a load of laundry going, I will be helping Sweetie with PT exercises, getting Sweetie in/out of shower, getting Sweetie dressed for the day, making lunch, cleaning up kitchen, going to YMCA for a work out, stoppng @ grocery store, playing a little electric guitar, puttering with the taxes, making dinner, cleaning up kitchen, stopping by the EBs, administering meds, getting Sweetie into PJs, tucking in Sweetie, playing a little acoustic guitar and holding Sweetie while she sleeps.

I feel so much better than the drudgery and dread of corporate life. The only question is whether I have the skills to navigate the bureaucracy well enough to remain a drop out.

up
0 users have voted.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche -

JayRaye's picture

than being part of the corporate rat race.

I wouldn't really call it being a drop out, but, yes, I suppose by the warped values of our competitive society, staying at home to provide care and support to a seriously ill family member is considered being a "drop out."

And that is a sad reflection of what America has become.

up
0 users have voted.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons

"Democrats are relatively free to antagonize their ideological core supporters"

Is this a reference to the base? I wonder whether we can call them the base if we cannot win primaries.

The problem is not that the base is annoyed. The problem is that the base is voting for the wrong Democrats. Whatever approach is taken, it needs to be one that can take such a hold on the party that Obama and co are scared of crossing us.

We need to find a message that sells without the support of Obama and then winning primaries should be easier

up
0 users have voted.

Don't fight the stream - Tyr Anasazi