David Sirota explains his position in person

In my previous diary, I displayed a link to a David Sirota post that explained how things got this way. You know:

How did we get a regressive Supreme Court, rampant inflation, unmitigated climate change, medical bankruptcy still common, student debt still overwhelming, an America where school shootings are routine, situation in Ukraine slowly moving toward nuclear war?...

But there's more! David Sirota explains in a YouTube video how the rank-and-file of the Enabler Party doesn't like what's going on:

Sure, Sirota is correct to assume that there is there is some sort of "mainstreaming of the anger at the Democratic Party." But please note how Sirota sidesteps the whole idea that the "normie Dems" might someday refuse to vote for Dem elites who do not deliver. You might observe, for instance, that the best he can do in this video is the notion that "primaries are a good thing." Sorry, David, the primaries are pretty much over for this year -- maybe in 2024. You can't really "hold these Democratic politicians to account" (to use Krystal Ball's phrase) unless you refuse to vote for them. You need, as I suggested in my previous diary, a quid-pro-quo arrangement -- to have any power at all.

Here is my prediction: the elite Dems will not be leaning on "electability" this time around. They know their poll numbers are pretty sad -- Donald Trump numbers without the enthusiastic base. Rather, you will hear a profound increase in discussions of (and publicity of) "FASCISM" so that "the Left" can be rallied to "defeat the fascists" once again. And they will lose, having nothing to run on, and more and more people will discover -- what will they discover? I know! They'll discover that there's no point in being in "the Left" if all you do in final elections is vote for Dem elites who do nothing.

EXTRA INNINGS: And here's a little "nice liberal with big ego" moment that popped up on my screen. Robert Reich explained to everyone on June 13th how:

Even if Democrats do not hold onto Congress, Biden could be a moral voice for why the system must be transformed. It’s his best hope for being reelected in 2024.

Or, just maybe, he (Biden) could be who he's been for the past fifty years. Note that "educating people about what the Democratic Party could do and what it's not doing" (as Sirota suggested) was beyond Reich's pale. Or at least that's how it stood as of June 13th of this year.

Share
up
21 users have voted.

Comments

Let's start with the gopers. They claim to be a bunch of cliches like open markets, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, non-intrusive government, etc. When in fact, these are just face paint easily dropped. The gop is more about white nationalism, aggressive militarism, rule by corporate elites, government largess for the power, and aggressive conservative Christian Protestantism. No responsible government budget will ever get in the way of those scriptures and values. Less intrusive government? Not when it comes to abortion, school prayer, etc.

Same with democrats. Every year polls come out showing democrats overwhelming favor good things like single payer health care, child programs, etc.

And every year, the democratic base votes for politicians openly against those policies. The narrative is that a cabal of corporate democrats have taken control of the party, and progressive and liberals must fight them and take control. Hence groups like Justice Democrats.

Maybe, just maybe, the base of the democratic party is not really liberal nor progressive. Like gopers they put forward face paint but really honor another agenda of structures and policies. There will be no taking over the democratic party because again, the base ain't into progressive ideals.

up
14 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@MrWebster if all they can do is deliver you unto a worsening world unto death.

It's really pretty simple.

up
12 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

is the total obliteration and dissolution of the Democratic Party and its replacement by an honest progressive party.
Before you cry defeatist babble note that the Republican Party was formed out of the rubble of the Whigs in 1854 and Lincoln was elected president in 1860.

up
15 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

karl pearson's picture

Sirota states the rationale behind the Dem establishment's refusal to support a progressive for president is due to George McGovern's big defeat in 1972. I've heard that story for decades. It's just an excuse to give cover to the Democratic party for perpetually suppressing progressive candidates. Barry Goldwater was trounced in 1964, but he is the father of the modern Republican party.

up
13 users have voted.

@karl pearson

of meeting McGovern on a couple occasions and have never regretted voting for him.
(you always remember your first time, right?)
Kind of hard to imagine him promoting Drag Queen Story Hour or claiming that late-term abortions are 'health care' or that Trump and his supporters should be barred from holding office or that the US should be dumping resources into continuation of a pointless bloody conflict for the benefit of a bunch of corrupt neo-nazis and arms makers...

But, as an unrepentant Trump voter, I definitely encourage Dems to run on all of the above points.

And see what happens.

Where's Huey Long when you need him?

up
3 users have voted.

@Blue Republic majority of the public would agree about banning DJT from holding office again, and most would also be on board with codifying Roe, so with even a semi-aggressive campaign Ds should come out ahead on those issues in the fall. The rare late-term stuff is misleading of course, though this is a way the Right likes to change the subject from the unpopular RW Court overturning a ruling that most of the public supports. The case against funding the UKR govt hasn't been made, as both parties seem to be in agreement, so no political gain there for Rs.

But after all the troubling evidence about T's J6 attempt to overturn an election to remain in power, what else could Donald possibly do short of murder on live tv to cause you to repent?

up
3 users have voted.

@wokkamile

In a coordinated, well-planned and financed way. Trump was, understandably, trying to do something about it, and frustrated when DOJ and various state officials - such as Georgia's Secretary of State Raffensberger and the attorneys general of AZ, PA of other states were refusing to do their job in investigating irregularities.

A central purpose of the J-6 show trial is to forestall any serious efforts at a full investigation into irregularities in the 2020 election, not to mention J-6 itself - both of which might well result when/if Dems lose big time in the midterms and 2024.

BTW - if this:

Probably a majority of the public would agree about banning DJT from holding office again

is the case, how do you account for this:

General Election: Trump vs. Biden
Emerson 6/28 - 6/29 1271 RV 2.7 44 39 Trump +5
Harvard-Harris 5/18 - 5/19 1963 RV -- 45 42 Trump +3

More likely that Dem (and their handlers) realization that they are doomed to lose if they have to face Trump in anything like an honest election accounts for the drive to do whatever they can to avoid having to do so.

The January 6 Committee is conducting a show trial, not a criminal one. Show trials, common in authoritarian regimes, are held for propaganda purposes, to punish political opponents, and to cover up the truth of what the regime has done.

Democrats’ show trial is completely one-sided. The members on the committee were appointed exclusively by Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. There are zero Republican-appointed members. In fact, Pelosi refused to allow the top Republicans Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy picked for the committee — an unprecedented violation of House rules and norms.

No one represents the accused or advocates for their rights. No cross-examination or presentation of a defense has been allowed from the targets of the trial. The committee does not follow House rules on evidence or witness depositions. The so-called investigation has declared off-limits any good-faith inquiry into issues that contradict their persecution, whether a look at what led to the lack of security by Capitol police forces or a look at the legitimate concerns about the unique and novel way the 2020 election was conducted.

More on the lies and misdirections of the House J-6 committee from Mollie Hemingway (author of 'Rigged') here

As for:

most would also be on board with codifying Roe, so with even a semi-aggressive campaign Ds should come out ahead on those issues in the fall. The rare late-term stuff is misleading of course, though this is a way the Right likes to change the subject from the unpopular RW Court overturning a ruling that most of the public supports.

How that will play depends a lot on where you're at. One thing I will say for some progressives is that there are those who have shown some backbone on defending privacy rights generally, but more have gone along with steady expansion of the surveillance corporate/state. While at the same time arguing that a right of privacy is the basis for the right to choice regarding abortion.

Somehow, when it came to Covid response, the 'my body, may choice' principle was tossed first and hardest in Dem-controlled places like Michigan, NY, Oregon, WA, California... yet they are at the forefront of preserving the broadest possible options for abortion - up to or even beyond full-term. If those are that rare, what is the point of pushing so strongly for them? And why is it 'progressive' elements are the ones most vocal in support?

Guess that 'if it saves just one child' stuff is only to be applied to promotion of gun restrictions.

Lest this be interpreted as blanket support for R's, I assure you it's not. The party is rife with corrupt scumbags. But at least there are some honest and courageous insurgents out there and a large number of rank and file citizens committed to, if not draining the swamp, to ridding it of toxic sludge and restoring it to something like pristine wetland status.

Dem side, not so much. And not so surprising that those in long taken for granted Dem constituencies are taking notice and given the option of fighting the overseers or heading off the plantation are opting for the latter.

up
1 user has voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Blue Republic

Did you hear what NYC did on gun rights? Anyone who wants to get a gun permit has to send in their social media accounts for the last 3 years. You know just in case someone has been saying that they want a gun to commit mayhem. Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of, but it’s not like the spy agencies don’t already have access to everyone’s social media accounts anyway. If they don’t have them then they can just ask the companies that buy our browsing history and get them from those companies.

up
3 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

@snoopydawg of the NYC proposal. Sounds a bit like how the Swiss do it, checking into people's character, up to and including even a psychiatrist signing off on the person. Not everyone should be able to get a gun, and the 2A is about a collective right in the context of a well-organized militia, Heller be damned.

up
2 users have voted.

@Blue Republic A true believer. At least you are clear about it. And we get a little more ideological diversity on this board, which I favor. But for truth in advertising purposes and for alliteration points, you should consider changing your handle to Red Republic.

Donald filed 62 lawsuits challenging the vote in various states where he lost, and won only once, on narrow technical grounds that had no impact in PA on the result. Iow, he had ample opportunity to present his evidence of election fraud, but couldn't produce any. Then he resorted to private personal persuasion, using the slime-bag Rudy Giuliani and Lindsay Graham to make a first attempt before he got on the phone. Judging by his call to election officials in GA, we can reasonably assume these calls were of a similar 'I just need X number more votes .." nature.

He lost fair and square, had more than his day in court and failed to persuade anyone about his bogus fraud claims. The election officials and the AG were just trying to do their jobs fairly and uphold the law against enormous pressure from our Mafia Don president. So we are left with his unproven fraud claims and no evidence to back them. Even some of his strongest supporters have backed away from supporting the fraud allegation.

On a majority of the public backing barring him from future office, 538.com has the polling about 55% in favor on an average of polls. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-majority-of-americans-want-to-bar... That's from Jan 2021, so this polling needs updating, but I suspect it would be about the same today or worse for Donald after the J6 evidence.

The head-to-head polls are rather meaningless right now, but will have more accuracy once the J6 hearings conclude. So far Donald's rep seems to be taking a further hit, and for good reason as evidence emerges that he was indifferent to the violence and wanted to lead the mob storming the capitol building.

On the Rs on the J6, McCarthy chose a couple of crackpots who were both believed by Pelosi to be involved in the events under investigation, so were rejected for cause, which is her right and duty as Speaker. McCarthy then chose to boycott instead of name Rs not involved in the events. His choice. Even DJT says he should have named other Rs and laments the lack of support he has on the committee.

On abortion and right to privacy, there is plenty of hypocrisy from both parties to go around. And hasn't the GOP always been the party of limited govt, getting Big Brother out of our personal lives? Except apparently women's wombs. They have also long been ok with and often leading the charge for more stringent govt surveillance of citizens to combat crime and terrorism. Anyone objecting on civil liberties grounds -- mainly those dangerous civil liberties lefties -- is accused by the Rs of being soft on crime and enablers of terrorists.

On "draining the swamp" and returning it to "pristine" status, it's ironic that you prefer someone as corrupt and unsavory as Donald to undertake that. And on the literal swamp, how about Donald's Scotus picks voting to make it harder for the EPA to combat climate change? Another big win for big polluting industry and the swamp just gets murkier.

up
3 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@wokkamile

On "draining the swamp" and returning it to "pristine" status, it's ironic that you prefer someone as corrupt and unsavory as Donald to undertake that.

The obvious thing about Donald Trump is that he's a lazy egotist who had no experience in politics before he won a Presidential election and was obviously no judge of character before he became President. One recalls a certain reality-TV show in which Trump's most famous catchphrase was "you're fired!" -- yeah, never mind that he was the one who hired the person in the first place. The results were, then, predictable: Trump was going to hire a bunch of incompetent frauds, let them stick around for awhile, and then fire them and hire more incompetent frauds.

up
3 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

@Cassiodorus trotted out the Drain the Swamp metaphor, along with Build the Wall, purely for political purposes. He has clearly shown he cares little for others, the problems they face, nor about important democratic traditions such as the orderly, peaceful transfer of power. What he cares about most, almost exclusively, is others being loyal to him, doing right by him as He sees it, and doing anything for him including breaking the law. Competence is considered only wrt competence in achieving Donald's objectives. In that respect, he is very like a couple of other modern-times presidents, both of whom were overly self-centered and self-serving who fell on politically hard times, who went to extremes in prioritizing loyalty over ability.

up
3 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@wokkamile If he had tried to run during Bush Junior's administration he might have run as a Democrat, since he was one at the time. I stick with what I said. Trump was and is a boob whom the Dems mislabeled a "fascist" so they could elect Joe "he'll never turn left" Biden. If he'd been re-elected we'd probably have the same do-nothing government (in light of wholesale social regression) that we have now.

up
1 user has voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

@Blue Republic signed the bill raising taxes on the middle class, just at the time I want to retire this decade. I will forever regard him as a no good mother fucker.
As for Biden, he never mentions it, is content to let the 1% get a tax break, and permit my class to support his wars. I will forever regard him as a no good mother fucker.
The lefty-rightie divide is good for theoretical divisiveness and even generates hatred, keeps people rushing to the voting booth to get even, or to alleviate their fears of "the other".
Paul Ryan admitted his reason for getting the tax bill enacted was because his donors told him that if he didn't, they would stop donating to the Republican Party. The takeaway is they would then donate to Democrats. So, if the funders and 1%ers who control government don't give a shit which party or person gets elected, why should I?

up
5 users have voted.

@on the cusp

of the duopoly *do* care who gets elected - despite the president's and congress' actual power being more and more circumscribed in favor of entrenched, corporate captured bureaucracy.

While there may be intra-elite differences about who is preferable, they were, until Trump, feeling secure in their ability to ensure that any major party nominee was corporate-vetted and Big Energy/Pharma/Agra/Tech/Weaponry and such would all be guaranteed a piece of the largesse and have their people in appropriate positions to ensure that happening.

Until Trump. Who they didn't control. But they weren't overly worried because they assumed he'd never beat Clinton. Then, when it looked like he *might* they went into freakout/damage control and when he actually *won* they went to Defcon 1 and have, essentially, been there ever since. Trump's selection of Micheal Flynn - former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and at or near the top of Obama's enemy list - really panicked them and put them in insurgency mode and weaponizing the DOJ to undermine Trump and go after his key supporters.

Was Trump under-prepared? Under-qualified? Lacking in basic knowledge? Intellectually incurious? Did he make major mistakes? Too egotistical? Yes, to all of the above.

But, I think he is basically honest and committed to the American people, not racist or misogynist, homophobic or the next Mussolini.

Thing is, Trump has made significant improvement in all those areas he was deficient in (ego thing still needs work) and the corporate/deep state fear that. The drive to prevent Trump or his supporters from holding office has nothing (contrary to what e-mails from Our Revolution, Public Citizen, Demand Progress are daily telling me) to do with his/their supposed criminal actions and existential threat to democracy, but rather a profound fear that their own criminality might ultimately be exposed or their power undermined.

The lefty-rightie divide is good for theoretical divisiveness and even generates hatred, keeps people rushing to the voting booth to get even, or to alleviate their fears of "the other".

Yes, getting the peasants fighting among themselves is a tried and true favorite of authoritarians, what with Google and the like they literally have it down to a science. It's all the more easier, though if the people to be manipulated are lacking basic values or a moral compass.

Quite a bit tougher to sway people not lacking the above.

sacred honor.jpg

up
0 users have voted.

@Blue Republic not Trump, not Biden, not People's Party Platform.
until the ability for corporations to be limited in their donations, it just doesn't matter. Corporations have no concern about who they control, other than how much it will cost them.

up
2 users have voted.

Without any unrealistic expectation of instant results, we can all have a place to vote that does not further empower the duopoly that has failed to deliver what the vast majority of the population NEEDS. Decades of voting for the lesser evil has FAILED. Effecting meaningful change, or any perceptible improvement from within, of our two party system has FAILED.

Our delusional and reckless foreign and domestic policies have brought us to the brink of both an economic collapse and a growing threat of a very hot exchange of unthinkably destructive munitions between three so-called ‘super powers’. We seem to want to rule the world, but can’t even provide functional and sustainable domestic environment for our people? And they want us to waste our vote on more of the same? Again?

The Peoples Party is offering a decidedly different platform, one that focuses on the well being of the population, not the bottom line for the investor class, bankers and oligarchs. They are building a party, planting a seed. I’d rather ‘waste my vote’ in their direction than affirm the Strangelove-like insanity of our duopoly.

If you haven’t already, you can check them out here. Their seed may wither and die, it may grow and never bear fruit (certainly not in my lifetime), or it may grow and change our world. For the better.

One can always try, until one can’t.

Hope, that is.

up
12 users have voted.

“We have a very small window in which we need to make a fundamental shift away from capitalism.” Kshama Sawant

Cassiodorus's picture

@ovals49 @ovals49 In how many states is the People's Party on the ballot now? I'm counting:

Florida

And I thought maybe Virginia but I didn't see them on Ballotpedia.

The rest of them are, I presume, in the process of collecting ballot access signatures. It's tragic, but it appears that (as of right now) damned few people actually want this, and something needs to happen to get the ball rolling. Can you get Jimmy Dore to declare ASAP?

up
3 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

@Cassiodorus
will take several election cycles, at best. At state and local levels things may move quicker, but more sporadically. Over the next decade or so (the rest of my ‘expected’ life) we will most likely not see a third party occupant of the Oval Office. Both sides of our duopoly will be running serious and coordinated interference, possibly with ‘extreme prejudice’.

It’s a long way to travel, and the allotted time may well be insufficient, given the current global tensions.

up
5 users have voted.

“We have a very small window in which we need to make a fundamental shift away from capitalism.” Kshama Sawant

In the end the corporatedems will blame the "far left radicals". They want free stuff and defund the police.

The dems tout bipartisanship and working across the aisle. When in power they bargain from what they think the right will accept, and then lose more ground in negotiations. So, the right starts out as a winner, in that they always get some thing, and threatening the dems always works to halt anything. When in power the right just ignores and derides the dems with Fox insults and does what it wants.

The dems get to wear the label of loser. So often it becomes part of the uniform.

up
8 users have voted.

@Snode Frankly I thought the corporate Dems and the Defund the Police were the same folks, maybe defunders were the cousin that got poor grades and works as a barista or for an NGO. Basically Rockefeller Republicans.

up
1 user has voted.

@ban nock Not worded good. The left always get blamed with the pejorative du jour. Commie socialist hippies far left radical Mcgovernites blah blah blah, how dare they want affordable health care or decent housing, if only they voted for Hillary Clinton. But yeah, corporate dems could be defund the police types, if they can blame it on the left.

up
5 users have voted.

and a founding member of the idiotic left. He used to have a radio show, and when you listen to someone riff unscripted on different subjects you get an idea of what you're dealing with, in Sirota's instance it was vast untapped vacuousness.

up
3 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@ban nock for those who use fifty words to say what can be expressed in four ("Sirota is an idiot") -- to look at George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language," especially where it says:

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

up
6 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead