General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn answer to rebuild.democrats.org about future of Democratic Party:
Come up with a new definition of toughness.
Currently, you seem to share the same one as Republicans, who seem to think toughness is crapping on middle and working class people who vote for them and bombing the crap out small countries.
Real toughness is taking on the richest individuals, corporations, and banks who break the law and putting those criminals behind bars not in your cabinet. If Obama had done that one thing alone, Democrats would not have lost the Congress in 2010, and his reputation would be in the ballpark of FDR.
Likewise, after seeing what Wall Street did with the first half of the bailout money, mostly squirrel it away or spend it on lavish bonuses and parties, you could have put some pretty tight strings on the second half or better yet, redirected that money to average Americans they victimized, who were losing their homes, drowning under student loan debt.
The conflict of today is not necessarily between capitalism and socialism, but between capitalism and DEMOCRACY. You have to decide which is more important, the will and welfare of the people as a whole, or the right of the already very wealthy to do exactly as they please no matter who it hurts. Right now, Democrats seem incapable of doing anything unless the rich profit from it too or at least tacitly allow it.
Admit that the government does some things better than the private sector, especially things essential to the survival of all of us, including the poorest and weakest, like providing water, electricity, education, police protection, mass transit, health care, and a safe retirement.
Doing those things better makes it easier for people of talent to rise to the top and small businesses to get started.
Learn the right lessons from the right: people care about outcomes not process. Bipartisanship, comity, and "getting things done" only matters if they are things that help average Americans and not indirectly through trickle down, hypothetical side effects of giving more money to the already wealthy.
In some cases, like the privatization of public education, there's the opposite of "trickle down." You are doing real damage to poor and middle class kids by letting hedge fund managers, for profit companies, and the foundations of the wealthy dictate how our kids are educated. By doing so, you are also demoralizing some of your previously most loyal foot soldiers, teachers. Why should they donate, phone bank, and pound the pavement for you when Arne Duncan, Rahm Emanuel, Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker, and countless other Democratic "leaders," pursue the same destructive privatization agenda as the Republicans?
Give up on incrementalism. Think big, and have some big, bold pieces of legislation ready to go when you regain control of Congress.
After 9/11, I don't think Republicans wrote the Patriot Act from scratch. They had it ready to go. Part of the problem with Obamacare was the prolonged sausage-making in Congress with the obscene spectacle of insurance and pharma lobbyists having a seat at the table and everybody else being locked out.
In some cases, the businesses effected NEED to be locked out. In particular, you need to return the power to print money to the treasury and take it away from private banks. This one thing would dramatically reduce our national debt and distortions of all policies in favor of the already wealthy.
Be honest about what's going on in foreign policy. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Russia and China are only a threat to us if we take the fight to their turf first. Lock out the neocons and keep an eye on them to make sure they dont manipulate events to force the policies they want.
Likewise, more and more people are noticing that our government is most concerned about "terrorism" in countries that have a lot of oil or pipeline routes and governments that are too independent for our oil companies and banks liking. In many cases, our government is funding religious extremists and mercenaries to overthrow relatively stable secular governments, so groups like ISIS are of our own making directly and not just as an indirect effect of laying waste to countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
A foreign policy that would be a lot cheaper and better for our national security would be to stop destabilizing and overthrowing other countries' governments because they won't put the interests of transnational corporations and banks ahead of the interests of their own people.
You also need to weld shut the revolving door between Wall Street and government, or at least make it a one-way trip. Members of Congress should be barred from being lobbyists, corporate lawyers, CEO's or do-nothing highly paid board members for at least as long as they served in Congress.
Presidents should end the obscenity of after office graft of privately funded presidential libraries and foundations.
As I write these things, I realize that today's Democratic Party may not be able to do any or even all of this. Too many profit from the way things are done now even when the Democratic Party loses.
But Democrats should take a look at the pre-Civil War situation. One party supported slavery, an institution that would be dead in a few years, and the other nominally opposed it. You would think the party on the wrong side of the issue would die first, but the Whigs dithered and appeased the slave-holders so much that those who saw clearly what needed to be done formed a new party in frustration, and the Whig Party died.
Democrats have one national election or maybe two to decide if they want to go the way of the Whigs.
If we win and elected Democrats govern the way you did after winning back the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, you won't get to decide.
We will leave you.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)By contrast to this vision, we currently have Jim Webb complaining that the Democratic Party is to left wing.
Excellent observation also about the Federal Reserve and its role in controlling the money supply. I would guess that the average voter has no idea that the Federal Reserve is actually a group of private banks.
And given that 90 plus percent of incumbents are re-elected each election cycle, your comments there are right on target also.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)that is not a surefire way to get re-elected.
Let's hope the Dems who are showing their true colors get primaried OUT, and replaced with those who will fight for us.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)building the foundation for control since the 1960s.
First, the 1% bought most of the media outlets of any size, allowing them to control the editorial message as well as control what is covered as news.
Second, the 1% have been pushing tax cuts that have steadily shifted the tax burden from the rich to the workers.
Third, the 1% has been waging class warfare in the form of stagnant or falling wages, anti-union laws, and monopoly capitalism. When WalMart is the largest employer in the US, it is terrible news for US families.
Fourth, because of its market share, Texas basically decides for the nation what version of history is presented to children. So what is being taught supports the supply side version of history.
Progressives have a very uphill battle to fight, and as you wrote, it is essential that Democrats present a clear alternative to endless austerity.
What is NOT a surefire way to getting elected is running as almost as right wing as the GOP.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)A problem with a non-parliamentary system wherein the parties have no method of party discipline.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)instead of states.
So people could vote for the party they want without fear of creating a spoiler.
And we would have a greater diversity of parties as well.
concreteblue
(626 posts)Rec, thumbsup. Cheer, etc.
Wish I could express this so eloquently.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You really hit the nail by pointing out that too many in our party are happy with the incremental losses we have suffered over the past 30 years, as long as they benefit personally.
I had a post removed for suggesting we might have to primary one or two of the worst offenders. I hope your post is not hunted down by the liturgy enforcers.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,971 posts)No thank you.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)they need to go in a different direction before they lose so much Republicans don't bother to have elections.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Governing is never an easy business. There are politicians all along the ideological spectrum that Leadership has to manage, on top of dealing with bitter partisanship. It's a sordid business.
Any talk of purging Democrats will not fix this, because it assumes that new people will be better - they won't. Political and management skills improve with time, generally, and politics is about relationships and compromise. There is no guarantee that someone who says the right things will govern the "the right way" according to your standards, once in power. Obama ran as a gadfly in 2008, and once in the executive quickly became a pragmatist. As for 2010 - that was on us. It was the worst political move Democrats could have made in a year of redistricting by not supporting the President and we paid the price - reckless, regressive policy making by GOP politicians at the local level.
If the complaint is the influence of corporations, two decisions in the Supreme Court would have helped nip this in the bud: Citizens United and FEC vs McClutcheon. In both instances, Republican picks for the Supreme Court were the deciding votes, if left leaning centrist Al Gore had won in 2000 ( or Kerry years later), we would not have had Roberts on the Supreme Court. Tag onto that the Hobby Lobby decision and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act - again decided by Republican appointed Scotus picks.
It's about power. If you stay home because you're annoyed that your choice is too much of a centrist, you leave the field open for an extremist Republican to take one more piece on the chess board. And don't expect your President to do what you want if you don't give them the support they need in Congress.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and therefore appear to be in the middle because they are trying to look like they are doing what the people who voted for them want while they are actually doing what those who bought them want.
That first kind of centrist is a rare breed, but I have some respect for them even when I disagree with them.
Those Democrats who didn't support Obama those first two years simply looked corrupt.
Progressive for the most part held their nose and voted with Obama even when they thought he could have gotten a better deal if he browbeat some of the farthest right Democrats.
Support goes both ways. The DLC/New Democrats/Whatever they want to call themselves can't kneecap progressives in the primary and starve them of party funds and support, give us a lobbyist in the general election, and then expect us to back his every move while he screws us until we bleed.
A case in point is education reform. Obama could make the case that Republican obstruction prevented progressive action in a lot of areas, put his first choice for ed secretary was a privatizer. No one twisted his arm to do that. If he had picked someone whose first loyalty was to public schools and not hedge fund managers and trust fund babies, maybe fewer teachers would have been in a deep depression in 2010, and instead had the enthusiasm to not only vote for Democrats in the general election, but canvas and phone bank for them.
As much as corporate Democrats love the big donors, no matter how much money someone has, they can only vote once--at least for now.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)illusions.
JHan
(10,173 posts)"making perfect the enemy of good"...I'll respond to your two posts here:
Because as we stood by, we allowed a President to be derailed, we lost power. Obama came and went, but the effects of 2010 lingered. That. Is. On. Us.
" politicians who are for sale" - you mean lobbying? Because money and politics ain't nothin new.
The problem with lobbying is that Corporate Lobbyists are over presented and the whole business is expensive. We need a greater balance in Washington - if it were easy to "buy off" a politician so much money wouldn't be expended.
And if Clean Energy Lobbyists pledges support to a Candidate, is that also "corruption"? What matters is the platform.
The Third way becomes relevant where compromise is necessary and that is from the 90's, good lord.
In any case, compromise is Politics and navel gazing about a politician's motives being "corrupt" is futile, what matters is their overall record. Are they 60%/70% progressive or more? Then fine, they'll vote for the progressive agenda more often than not.
Regardless of the things you disagreed with Obama ( and I have my criticisms of him, mostly during his first term), the end result is the same - we are where we are because we lack power and we have lost sight of who the real enemy is - and it ain't the Centrist Democrat.
It was Democrats who fought against the Bush Tax Cuts of the 2000's, did not want Citizens United etc. Idealism has no play in power politics. You're left with nothing except your gripes and worse off because you've no leverage.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)during the Bush administration fiasco and certainly by the crash of 2008, Democrats could have put a knife in that turkey and pronounced it dead, and did what needed to be done to rein in the financial sector and corporate bad actors who were allowed to run wild like frat boys on spring break for a couple of decades.
That did not happen.
Also, I would be pretty happy with 60-70% if it was on substantive economic, budget, and foreign policy stuff.
Hell, I would even settle for a president and Democrats in Congress who are progressive on EDUCATION.
But they have let Republicans and more specifically their financial patrons draw the broad outlines of policy and just niggle a bit about how much is spent on this or that.
JHan
(10,173 posts)As you know, a President cannot put anyone in jail, it's up to his/her AG to deal with cases, and while Holder expressed regret that there weren't any significant prosecutions of reckless bankers because, to paraphrase him loosely, they were able to deftly navigate laws while engaging in reckless behavior, I think it's more a case of a cultural feature of the DOJ where there was great hesitancy going after banks "too big to fail" because of the financial fall out.
And how they became untouchable because of size is due to little effort made stopping consolidation, and the failure of regulatory bodies. The choice before President Obama then ...was to risk more collapse - and jobs and further uncertainty in the market through aggressive prosecution - or keep things as stable as he possibly could. He and he alone can't be blamed for the effect of decades of abuse in the financial sector while trying to keep the economy afloat to the best he possibly could...
Despite all this, Democrats are very different to Republicans on this, we aren't even "republican lite" on these issues.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)couple of levels of management.
Even if these banks didn't come directly under that authority, it could have served as an example of how to deal with these guys.
Also, as far as not giving them the money leading to economic collapse, several of the banks gave out more in bonuses and spent more on parties than they got in the bailouts, so the only economic stimulus from the bailout was for banks in the Cayman Islands, and coke dealers and prostitutes on Wall Street.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)...as I see it, the view that politicians are in the "pocket" of anyone or beholden to any industry is a simplification. The effectiveness of a Lobbyist has more to do with the shrewd calculations a Politician makes based on the needs of his or her state/district, or their ideology. Of course there's corruption in D.C, Power is a corrupting influence, but these decisions aren't solely about selling oneself to the highest bidder. Corporate Lobbyists are currently far over represented so their concerns are heard the most - that's the real problem.