Hostile Takeover or Third Party?
I wrote this over several days to add to a discussion that has surfaced and resurfaced, but now I can’t find where it is so I am doing it this way. (Two weeks ago, I didn’t know blog from fog. Now I am following three sites so please bear with me.) It is entirely possible that everything here has been said. If so, please simply count it as a recommendation for those or regard it as a hypothetical possibility. I find that I cannot avoid saying it. I am not into a credit thing so please use this any way you see fit. This is bigger than any one of us and, I believe, bigger than all of us put together. This is my current take, make of it what you will.
Hostile Takeover
This seems to be the most fitting and the most immediate approach. It furthers our current concepts of who we are and what we are committed to. It is OUR party and by jiminy we will make it that way! This will be much harder to do now that the Dims have watched the Reeps go through their version. Bernie took them by surprise. The primary concern of any institution or system is, of course, self-perpetuation. The second is to provide individuals with pathways to power. The third is whatever the mission statement says. In order to take one over, you first have to join. On the way in, you must make certain commitments, adopt certain positions, show some identity with the brand. Persons of integrity have difficulties making promises that they do not intend to keep. I have watched friends enter into systems (public education, criminal justice, health care) with the clear goal and stated intent to change them from the inside. At some point each of them realized that in order to make change it was necessary to attain a position of authority. And in order to do that it was necessary to trade off more and more integrity. They found that one is required to sell out before one is allowed to buy in. They each had to either get out (which most of them did) or accept the trade-offs. I find that one of the most unique things about Bernie is that he managed to avoid all that for all those years. I understand why he went in; I just hope he comes out okay.
Third Party
By now you might have guessed which way I think is better. Even if it isn’t, this look might be used to further the conversation. In this age of verticalization and centralization, some things are curiously becoming more localized. The internet can provide immediate proximity: we can all see and hear the same thing at virtually the same time. It is possible that this feature provides a key to our problem. What if, instead of another national monolith, our third party was localized to each state? Each group could form a 501(c) (4) membership nonprofit like the NRA (e.g. “the Third Party of Alabama”). This would allow each effort to develop at its own chosen speed while insulating problems to whichever locale is having them. Communities that are already more like-minded and more ready to embark could do so without having to wait to leaven the whole lump. Or, maybe a franchise approach like MacDonald’s with centralized templates for whatever and legal support. Each locale (state, I suppose, to facilitate the election of senators) would gather its own signatures and take up collections to place candidates on ballots. Locales that are ready to do so could also get involved in state and local level elections as well. This approach would also fit better with the observation that “all policy is ultimately national, but all problems are local”. No national convention would be necessary. No “50 state strategy” would be necessary. No national donor lists. National MSM would be marginalized. Prospective national legislation could be shared over the internet and hashed out to fit as many locales as possible. I think that something like this would shrink the overwhelming goal of saving the United States of America down loser to human size.
Either Way
It is now apparent that the vaunted “two party system” has been co-opted. There might be two parties, but there is only one establishment. What started out to be Darth vs Obi-wan is now Jabba the Hutt with two heads. The “Great Experiment” is over, the results are in: greed beats “self-interest, rightly understood”. Time to move on to practical applications of what we have learned.
The main requirements for working out the details will be integrity, trust, and patience. The process is now well-known and best put by Gandhi: 1.) They ignore us, 2.) they laugh at us, 3.) They beat us, 4.) We win. The first two steps should give enough cover for the start-up period.
The good news is that, as things are today, it doesn’t take 50%-plus-one to pass legislation in either house of Congress. With the current factions, 10 Senators and maybe 45 representatives is enough. Those numbers would go up, of course, with any success by a third party. By negotiating with the two Jabbaheads, legislation can be passed poco a poco. The first session would involve the election of a Speaker of the House. Whichever side promised to enact third party legislation would get the plum. To keep them “honest”, House rules would include an election of the Speaker every month. No third party legislation means no legislation whatsoever: no budget, no appointments, no new names for post offices. (Fortunately, the niceties of a government shutdown have already been worked out.) All the pressure would be on the bought-and-paid for pols: they have specific assignments with tight timelines. We would have time on our side. Third party members wouldn’t have any committee assignments or fund raising chores, so they could spend a lot more time with constituents. I would recommend that third party candidates agree to one term and that’s it. That way lobbyists would have constantly moving targets. And, given enough time, we could ALL get that cushy retirement and benefits package!
Comments
My inclination is well organized hostile takeover
What I think is that us Berniecrats need an identity and cohesion all unto our own... distinct from any formal party. I'm hoping that this site can serve as the clearing house for that although it needs a LOT of work to serve that purpose. I think we must emulate the Tea Party in that regard. But then the question becomes "towards what ends do we turn our new-found identity?" I suspect a hostile takeover is the most pragmatic approach and I think it needs to happen at all levels. My personal commitment is that anywhere I find a credible populist candidate... a Berniecrat... I donate. If they are in my voting district, I vote. The flip side of that is that I withhold my votes from oligarchy candidates. I no longer care if they are the lesser evil... it's evil enough for me.
I think that we need to make it a true statement for Democratic candidates that you cannot win an election on a non-populist platform. Oh... and we'll be looking at more than your rhetoric... we'll be looking at actual voting patterns. Did you endorse Hillary? Did you vote for the AUMF? How about TPP? All three of those are instant "can't get my vote" flags for me. I think we need to stop playing nice and doing things like online petitions, phone calls, etc. They don't care. I think what they care about is my vote and how they will get it is by being a populist.
Accordingly, if this one goes down to Trump vs. Hillary then Jill Stein gets my vote. As I always said over on GOS, I will vote for the most credible populist candidate in the general.
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
I agree no more "lesser" evil voting for me either.
Some evil is too evil to be considered "lesser" evil, for example, the kind of candidate who is a friend of Henry Fucking Kissinger! They don't make big enuf clothespins to block out the stench of that one.
The Clintons and the Trumps are buddies, they care more about each other than either of them cares about us. They socialize together while we are supposed to decide which of them is the "lesser" evil.
We are being played as bunch of chumps by both those families.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Evil
If all a party has to offer over and over again is "the lesser of two evils" then it is logical to assume that the party is producing evil. It might be the lesser, but it is still evil. The trick thus far has been to get us to support evil. For myself, I WILL vote for Bernie Sanders as the next President of the United States of America even if it is a write in. And NOT as a "protest vote". I don't have that many cycles left. I want this one to be for the best and most qualified person to offer himself for the Presidency in my lifetime.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
No more evil votes
I agree that this election is not the place to once again vote the lesser of two evils. I'm 80 so, as you say, I haven't many cycles left. Until I began to read comments on Daily Kos I didn't realize how many others of all ages had come to the same conclusions and beliefs that I have had for many years. Kos seems to have gone over to the dark side, but Caucus99% means I needn't stay there to find a few kindred spirits. I too will vote for Bernie whether or not he gets the Dem nomination. I have never voted for a Clinton and do not intend to start now. What a relief to find others that agree.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
Love your image.
Didn't we all learn to share in Kindergarten? Most of our parents reinforced that. Somewhere along the way, I missed hearing why it was such a bad idea.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I absolutely will not vote for HRC,
and neither will Raggedy Andy. We've both decided to write Bernie in.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I am opposed to hostile takeover
Until we have had a discussion--and a mighty serious one--about why the last hostile takeover attempt (2002-2010) failed. This discussion needs to be a strategic and tactical analysis, and it needs to be thorough. The Dean movement was actually a very well thought-out and serious strategic attempt to take over the Democratic party. The fact that Dean's policy positions are considerably to the right of Bernie's doesn't matter. He was trying to wrest power from the Clinton machine, b/c he was sick of its embrace of Bush policies (too far to the right even for him). He had some great things going for him in terms of how he understood politics, and despite being to right of me, was WAY ahead of a lot of people I talk to on, for instance, relation btw electoral and non-electoral politics, how to turn a failure into a success, how to build coalitions nobody thinks are possible, etc. And yet his (and our) victories resulted in the left, and even liberals, having less power and less representation in the political system than before. The Overton Window moved right--and how. Ideas that had previously been Bush ideas suddenly were simply the way things are done in American politics. Dissent was suddenly called racism, or stupidity, and disallowed. And the coalition was dismantled and a great deal of effort expended to fracture it permanently along racial lines--a job that worked so well that that fracturing persists even when it's not the first black president at the heart of the divide--but a white WASP from Wellesley whose career includes supporting the crime bill, welfare "reform," and NAFTA. It was a great model for political change--except that it resulted in our taking several blows to the gut and head and being left bleeding by the side of road while the neoliberals went off arm in arm.
The one worry I've had about Bernie is that he *seems* to be using same political model as Dean: people power, build big coalitions, then use them to get people elected, fill party up with progressives and change it from inside out, etc. Sounds great. Problem is, we just tried that. We have not analyzed how or why electoral victories turned into a near-death experience for left-wing--or even liberal--thought within the large political institutions. "The Tea Party got elected at the end of 2010!" is not a cause, but a symptom, of our having been defeated apparently at the moment of victory.
I wouldn't participate in another takeover attempt until I was pretty damned sure I knew how, and why, the last one failed, and until we had a plan--maybe more than one--for dealing with what went wrong last time. First on the list, IMO, would be understanding who and what the enemy really is, and how it works.
We made some serious errors, and we were betrayed in ways we need to examine with a clear head and, if possible, with dry eyes and without breaking anything. We did not consider--or left to our leaders--the issue of the mechanics of the party and how they might work to thwart us even if we won electorally. We trusted that when we elected seemingly populist or change candidates that they would stay that way (some only stayed that way for about five minutes).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We didn't try like the Tea Party would have.
If you don't have the power for an offense, then you look at passive agressive resistance. We always try to play on their field. When we do, we lose - Bernie is a wait and see. I think we join vote for the GOP opponent and take the corporate Dems out. As the saying goes, no pain, no gain. If we can't hurt them, they have to reason to pay any attention to us. If we had adopted this strategy much earlier, it would have cost us less to have the GOP in power. Now, supporting a Trump or a Cruz to prove a point is going to hurt a lot. Yet, some strategy of making them pay (behind held accountable to their voters) has to be a part of any strategy to wrest power. The spoils go to the victor, unless you're Obama, then you leave them on the table and walk away.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Frightening as it is - we have to do this now!
Frightening as it is, I agree. We must wrest control of the Democratic party from the Clintons.
Only way I think a bit differently, is I do think there are still enough semi-intelligent people in the Democratic party to know, that if Bernie Sanders keeps winning, gaining support, the Super Delegates, if we scare them enough, will join us in supporting Bernie Sanders.
SO, petitions, constantly repeating in every media outlet we have access to that this is NOT a business as usual election.
The Democrats, Independents, previously non registered, disillusioned, disgusted with corruption now political active VOTERS are not going to play the
reconciliation game Clintons are "suggesting" now or EVAH! NO.
For a start:
https://www.change.org/p/i-support-bernie-sanders-but-i-will-not-support...?
If you support Bernie Sanders and you won’t support Hillary Clinton then let the DNC know that by signing and sharing the petition below. This petition doesn’t necessarily mean you will not to vote for Hillary if she is the eventual nominee, but that she will not have your personal support in a general election, such as donations and personal advocacy. Better to let the DNC know now before the race is decided. Hillary is universally unpopular amongst voters 18-29 and independents, two demographics democrats need to win a general election, in addition she has an over 50% disapproval rating. Also Hillary is only winning in states that are not going to matter much in a general election while losing in those that are, by wide margins. Meanwhile Republicans are have broken records for participation in all of the first nominating contests. If Hillary and Trump win their perspective nominations then Trump could not only become our next president but he could also obtain super majorities in the house and the senate.
AND, anything else we can do to make sure this message gets out LOUD & CLEAR to anyone who is going to be in Philadelphia in July.
Using the language not of threat, but of FACT. This is what is going to happen if Clinton is nominee. Yes, we know the consequences, and we are willing to suffer them if we have to.
This opportunity to elect President Sanders, bring the Democratic party back to it's real mission, it too important, life or death important to miss.
Why reinvent to wheel?
There is already an organization in existence that could use our support. The Democratic Socialists of America
Leave the Democratic Party to starve.
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
Sadly the DSA usually ends up supporting the Democratic Party
And so that is why I have never joined them.
Why pay money to join an organization that, after the primaries, will support Hillary?
I could do that for free if I were inclined to give my support to Hillary, which I'm not.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I will be voting Green and that's were my $ donations will go.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Voting Green as well.
I actually like that Stein is willing to tell the MIC to go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
Of course it may be just the fact that I can't hold my nose and vote Libertarian, because those assholes are even MORE insane than the Republicans, and wrap it in the veneer of "Freedum..."
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Wouldn't it be easier to reform a small party
like the DSA than try to "fix" the Democratic Party?
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
The DSA is not a party, it does not run candidates in elections.
And almost always ends up supporting the Democratic candidate.
They are supporting Bernie right now, but will most likely endorse Hillary if she gets the nomination.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
I hear what you are saying...
And I understand that they are not a party.....yet. But what happens with an influx of new blood? New ideas....new energy, etc.?
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
yep, that is one option, perhaps a good one.
I looked at it and decided against it but there are people that I respect very much who are members. The DSA is doing good work right now supporting Bernie.
What I think is good is that we now have a place to discuss options other than simply voting for the Democratic nominee no matter how corrupt that nominee is.
Hell, I even welcome someone making an argument for voting for the "lesser" evil as long as they can do it in a civil manner without the name-calling (moron, etc) that we see at that other place where they DEMAND that we vote for the Dems no mater what.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
what if, instead, we reformed
the Greens? Is that even possible? I seem to have read somewhere that their structure is kind of self-ossifying.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I've heard that also Bisbonian, guess I'll be finding out more
if Hillary gets the nom because I plan on voting Green in that case if Jill Stein gets their nomination. I know enuf about her to vote for her, but I have a lot more to learn about the structure of the Green Party.
I don't think the Green's could ever win on their own. Several movements would need to be brot together to create a viable 3rd party, those are my thots anyway.
Very glad to be able to have that discussion here.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
JayeRaye
Any thoughts about the Working Family Party? They were the first to step up and support Bernie. They ran Teachout, and she and the party put up a closer fight than the Green Party ever has. I am not opposed to a third, fourth, and fifth party. I just don't know if this country is ready for it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Working Party does some very good work.
But in the end they mostly support the Democratic nominee no matter who that nominee is.
Again, not my choice, but there are some very fine folks in the WP that I respect very much.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Well it sounds like...
there are three or four small parties that could be brought together for the common good... an alliance and or reconfiguration of the Greens, DSA, and the Working Party combined with all of us homeless Progressives.... could become a formidable and viable third party...
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
yep agree completely & also the movement to build a Labor Party
that has been going on for years without much success.
The peons are fed up and this might be the time to move forward on uniting different 3rd party efforts.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
I could see Democrats Abroad
perhaps brought into the fold too. For the most part I am not sure the Democratic party really has our best interests at heart either.
The question is, where do we start?
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
The Tea party is not an actual party
They are all Republicans, they operate as a voting block. It works since 2010, and it has destroyed the GOP. I am just saying.
I like the idea of a group pushing from outside the system.
"If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back" - Regina Brett
First of all, I love this
First of all, I love this line:
"There might be two parties, but there is only one establishment." Bingo!
And I think once you internalize this, you start to wonder if there's any hope (or need) to reclaim the Democratic party. The problem we have is that half our Democrats are Republicans, and half our Republicans are freakin' crazy.
Up til now, the conventional wisdom was always, "reform the party," that there's no way a third party can take root. I've always been a bit skeptical of that sentiment, and I also wonder if it misses the point.
What if you aimed lower than building a third party? Is it possible to build a voter's bloc, a group that simply states. "If you're not a staunch supporter of x, y and z, we're not voting for you." Period. Instead of hoping that a candidate arises who espouses those sentiments, you encourage candidates to embrace those sentiments in order to secure your vote.
Yeah, I realize that's how the party system is supposed to work. But it doesn't. See blue dog Dems, for instance. Too often, we are left with the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils. That's a hell of a way to run a country. Can you imagine running a business that way? "Which of our products in development sucks less? Let's put that one on the market!"
I'm still holding out hope for Bernie, but if it doesn't happen, I hope an effort is made to organize his supporters into such a bloc. Income and wealth inequality are the top internal issues facing the U.S. Lessen that disparity, and a lot of other problems begin to take care of themselves. People who believe that should not settle for anything less than full-scale progress toward a more equitable society.
I'm a lifelong Democrat. Voted for one Republican (a senator) in 36 years as a voter. Will never again vote for anyone who's not part of the solution to inequality.
Sorry for the long response. I've been holding that in for too long.
"The real power is in the hands of small groups of people and I don't think they have titles. -- Bob Dylan"
Team politics always fields against Americans
Team politics is two squads. Red Squad and Blue Squad. They are the same team, it is just whether offense or defense gets shuffled.
The American people are a separate team entirely, but the people are also fans of the squads on team politics, and those people think that Team politics is actually two separate teams that are playing for them.
The owners of the teams sit above everyone else. They look at the fans in the stands too, paying to see the teams play, and laughing at all the other people in comfort and in relative luxury compared to the people sitting in the open air watching their paid for team squads battle the American people against themselves.
For those who say - wait a second. If you say the Republican Squad is not different from the Democratic Blue Squad, then you don't know what you're talking about. And the response to that is that of course the squads are different. It's about fielding offense and defense, and special teams after all.
"The parties are different" argument is just deflection. Those who make this point just don;t want to discuss the real issues behind those differences. Of course the parties are different. They have to be. The real problem is that the American people never realize that the two squads are one team, playing against the American public, and that team politics usually wins the game while the owners laugh all the way to the bank.
The players on team politics (red and blue squads) get a good laugh too. Many times, they can sit around and do nothing, or net to it by wasting time with their public service (obstruction, offering bills and laws they know are bad, will not pass) and they still get paid, and still are on a path to receiving very good post elective pay if they can be in office long enough - all at tax payer expense. The other big laugh. Every now and again, they vote themselves raises, but they rail against raising minimum wage, or offering a living wage.
Our owners are laughing at us - all the time.
This is one strategy to make them pay...
We did it to Lieberman. It was quite successful and really pissed off the establishment. We might not have been 100% successful, but it took Bill Clinton to come fish his ass out of the water. That was a model we should have built on. It is twice as hard to elect a candidate as it is to organize against one.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thank you!!
This is exactly the type of conversation that I was hoping C99 would provide!
We old-timers have been advocating and working for a take over of the Democratic Party for many many long years and the only result is that the Dem Party has gone further and further to the right.
I vote third party. The Democratic Party is about to split wide open. That's my prediction anyway. I think there are a lot of Bernie supporters who will refuse to vote for the plutocrat wing of the Democratic Party. We have simply had it with the lesser evil bullshit.
I've been on a few Labor for Bernie conference calls with some top union leaders. And I've never before heard top union leaders say such uncomplimentary (and that's putting it mildly!) things about the Democratic Party.
Any third party to be successful is going to have to attract unions that have had it with supporting the Democratic Party. That would start with a few powerful unions which could inspire others to follow suit.
Then I'd like to see the more progressive third party movements seeking unity.
It would take a lot of work, but I think it could be done.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
CWA
Think the idea of getting union support is key. Expect we'd find CWA a key resource.
When the Democratic party splits apart, which will happen if they crown Clinton - would be the perfect time to start.
Bernie's campaign is going to have the best lists, and an organization in place on the ground.
yep, I think the guy who really went off was CWA, but
don't want to say for sure cause several leaders spoke and I got confused about exactly who said exactly what.
But I can say for sure that I wasn't hearing was the usual party unity crap that we usually hear during a primary about supporting The Party no matter what.
Cause Fuck That Shit.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
CWA
Can't remember name, but ex leader of CWA working with Bernie.
Damn my swiss cheese brain, can't remember name - heard him speak, he's good.
I agree JayRaye
This is the conversation and organizing that needs to be done and was verboten on dailykos. I hope this place can be a home for it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Please sign, share
So appreciate this discussion. Whatever the next steps are, think it is crucial now for the DNC/DLC/Third Way to know this election is not business as usual. Ther will not be a "kiss & makeup" if Hilary Windsock Clinton is crowned by Debbie Wasserman-Shitz!
This was posted on Kos diary by first time poster, immediately hidden & banned - would love to see it hit 100,000 and get MSM attention
https://www.change.org/p/i-support-bernie-sanders-but-i-will-not-support...?
If you support Bernie Sanders and you won’t support Hillary Clinton then let the DNC know that by signing and sharing the petition below. This petition doesn’t necessarily mean you will not to vote for Hillary if she is the eventual nominee, but that she will not have your personal support in a general election, such as donations and personal advocacy. Better to let the DNC know now before the race is decided. Hillary is universally unpopular amongst voters 18-29 and independents, two demographics democrats need to win a general election, in addition she has an over 50% disapproval rating. Also Hillary is only winning in states that are not going to matter much in a general election while losing in those that are, by wide margins. Meanwhile Republicans are have broken records for participation in all of the first nominating contests. If Hillary and Trump win their perspective nominations then Trump could not only become our next president but he could also obtain super majorities in the house and the senate.
thx for posting this, Caerus, already signed, hope more will!
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Thanks
Have posted it in a few places, certainly NOT at GOS. But did send it by pm to many there.
Really think we just have to get DNC/DLC to realize we are serious about not dancing to their tune.
It's not PUMA either, I'm an Independent - have been since Clintons took over the Democratic party.
Would love to see this petition get some msm coverage too. FAST - before 3/15
I already had signed it as well!
I am done allowing the parties to take my vote for granted.
From now own if they want my vote, they better earn it.
Because FTS!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I've already signed it too...
I am also a #BernieOrBust pledge. We have to let them know we plan to make Hillary lose and then do it. When we can hurt them, we will finally have some power.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Should have read this before
I added my post on the top of thread...'keep forgetting what I've already read here - getting used to new format.
Think it's key we all let it be know, we will be willing to suffer the "consequences" to defeat Clintons. I express it as saying I will not be feared, guilted, shamed, SCOTUS'ed, threatened into voting for Clinton. Know there must be a beter way to express it, open to learning whatever it is.
The party thing is a distraction
What matters are the issues, and they are legion. I like the idea of a voting block backed up with some funding. I would like to get unions involved - unions can screw up, but they have got the job done in the past and when muscle needs to be flexed they have the ability to deliver.
I don't care what party someone belongs to, in the end there are only two sides - for and against. Politically I think there are really only two party's, Liberal or Conservative. And frankly while I am liberal I don't want to close my option on being conservative sometimes. It all comes down to the issue.
As I see it the revolution started some 50 years ago when corporations started persuading politicians. Then since Reagan came to the White House corporations have pretty much been running the place to suit themselves. They didn't use a party, they used their lawyers to write legislation to suit themselves and then they used their money to get politicians to support it. The 99% were not invited and not included. Cue George Carlin. They took both Republican and Democratic politicians and that is why the 99% got left with none.
Well Bernie has shown this party can be crashed. He has served as an independent until he needed to join a party on the issue. He has not taken any corporate support - it is all real people. And Bernie has shown that honesty, integrity, humanity, and caring work. That should be the core principles by which a voting block holds itself together, and we need to write our own legislation and bring it to the politicians. If things get nasty we bring in the unions. There is a reason the Kochs and Walmart crowd are so scared of unions. I admit they can be a wild card at times, but so long as those core principles are upheld I think it is unstoppable.
And I would support even someone holding a Republican seat if they would support an issue. if we take it issue by issue, and do it from outside the party system.
The short version is we give a voice and some muscle to the independents. People can leave the party and still get heard. Get a few members of the house and senate to step outside the partys knowing there is a support system for them. They will still have to caucus with a party as they vote and work the issues, but they can do it on a per issue basis.
In the end it is not about Dems versus Repubs, it is corporate influence versus the 99%. The corporations have shown how it is done and Bernie has shown we can fight back.
"If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back" - Regina Brett
I just asked a very similar question
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/30470#comment-30470
Oh shit! I forgot, I am not on Dkos anymore!
I can actually say this!
Maybe we need to push for the formation of a new party if we cannot get Sanders to win their BS stacked primary.
Not that we shouldn't support good Dems, but we really need a change, and there is nothing that says parties can't go away.
Look to the Whigs.
We may be seeing the implosion of BOTH major parties this year.
It sure looks like it the way both parties constituents are rejecting their parties "Establishment Candidates"
I think we could pick up a lot of Moderate republicans, a bigger chunk of the Independents and almost HALF of the Democrats with the right platform.
Damn, This is getting me excited to get back into politics, I got burned out on it back when I used to go to DC to lobby for AFL-CIO when I was a Regional VP for AFSCME, but now I feel like we may have a chance to enact some positive change for workers everywhere!
up
- See more at: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/30470#comment-30470
I am honestly thinking that we don't need the baggage of any of the existing parties, The people are FED UP of the existing parties.
This movement that Senator Sanders is helping to lead is something new, Something Different.
Do we really want to attach it to something old and unsuccessful?
I am not saying that this is right, it's just something we should consider.
Because We the people have been crying out for something new for quite some time so why wrap it in old packaging?
Just my two cents...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
AFSCME? :-)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvu0WEYNGiY]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That is AWESOME!
How did I never see that before!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
no longer interested in party affliation
I really liked the beginning of the OCCUPY movement w/o a settled structure. I think we the people are the ones who end up co opted when we align ourselves in neat little groups.
imo, we need to stay fluid and focused on ISSUES, and keep the forces exerting pressures on the systems we create, from economics to environment, in some kind of sustainable balance.
that means our value systems as well . . . how do we evolve into taking some small measure of stewardship of the planet upon which we live?
“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"
In George Washington's farewell address, in 1796,
he had a few things to say about Parties. I made up a sort of Geroge Washington meme image a few days ago...I think it's too big to upload here. The whole address is here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp The excerpts I liked best were:
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
you hit me in one of my soft spots
G. Washington is one of my heros. He evolved into greatness from an ordinary privileged bloke. The words of the founding documents changed him, tormented him (as a slave owner and hater of "Indians"), and created out one of the most extraordinary men of the last 500 years. imo.
I listen to Bernie and feel it: the words aren't flat to him, aren't currency to him. The ideas are forcing an evolution in courage to imagine governing OUTSIDE the system... one which Washington would find appalling.
“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"
pfiore8
I feel the same way. Maybe only have action groups for each Congressional district. If you're gonna fight the establishment from without, then it is gonna be guerrilla warfare. I am no military tactician, but there are several things that such efforts have in common. One is to refuse to define your effort in their terms. Travel light, keep moving. Hit 'em where they ain't. And then melt away into the countryside. "Party? What party? We don't need no stinkin' party." Coalesce from all over on one campaign at a time.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
Thrownstone
agreed! less organized is harder to disrupt. we just keep the great ideas out there and we're learning from social media how to communicate these ideas without too many words.
“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"
It's the political system of representative government
that is corrupt and rigged and totally inadequate (535 politicians "representing" 330 million people). The Dem party can't be changed, third parties can't win, the only choice is a Revolution to change the system.
Ya I know, talk to the hand. I'm going to work.
End the wars, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more.
i know people think i'm nuts
but it ain't REVOLUTION we need. it's EVOLUTION.
our values must fundamentally change.
“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"
I don't think you're nuts.
That's a very good point. I think we need both, but certainly we need evolution or there can be no revolution (change of power).
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!