2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIt's a Movement, Stupid: Why Bernie Can Deliver While Sensible Centrists Can't
by John Atcheson
Common Dreams
1/29/16
The Consequences of Politics Without Passion or Conviction
Democrats have been trying the pragmatist approach for decades now. Since Reagan, theyve been loath to confront the conservative mantra of small (read ineffective) government, low taxes, deregulation, trickle down economics, and obscene support for job creators. In reality, however, all that just is code for corporate welfare and giant giveaways to the uber rich.
The reason, of course, is that Democrats are as dependent upon the campaign contributions from these groups as the Republicans are.
As a result, what the press, the pundits, and those in the Party establishment think of as the sensible center has drifted further and further to the right and the terms of the national political debate occur exclusively on the conservatives side of the fence. If thats where you start the negotiations, then any compromise only accelerates the rightward drift. Theres nothing sensible about that.
Thats what passes for sensible and centrist a guaranteed loss of ground.
The problem with all this and the part the Party establishment, the pundits and the main stream media (MSM) just dont get is that the vast majority of Americans havent moved to the right with the Party.
As a result, many are staying home on election day, and Democrats are losing power.
You cant compromise your way to your goal, especially if you cant get elected
As income disparity and the influence of money in politics has expanded, voter turnout has only gotten worse. The 2014 midterm election represented the lowest voter turnout in modern US history.
And while the party in power normally loses ground in the midterms, 2014 was a rout of epic proportions for Democrats. Basically Democratic candidates took the sensible centrist position and avoided taking stands that the MSM and the punditocracy defined as controversial. And no one showed up at the polls except the radical right.
If you stand for nothing, you will get beat by anything
Democrats are getting slaughtered at all level of government because citizens are tired of voting for people who dont represent them.
For example, at the state level, Republicans have total controlthat is, a Republican governor and Republican majorities in the legislatureof 24 states. Democrats, by comparison, control only 7 state governments. The rest are split.
Its not that Bernie doesnt know how the political process works, its that he knows its NOT working
When Hillary tells you Bernie Sanders doesnt know how American Politics works, and people like Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, and Jonathon Chait repeat it, theyre missing one important fact: The American political process doesnt work, and it wont, until and unless we get a real political revolution.
Its certainly not working for the 99% of Americans who are getting left behind economically. Its certainly not working when the interests of the elite few trump the desires of the rest of us. And its certainly not working when the progressive issues the majority of Americans favor are completely ignored by the government they elect.
If we have a different Congress, things will change
This, of course, is the crux of what the Party establishment, the mainstream media, and the punditocracy dont get. If Bernie Sanders gets elected, its because he got the disaffected majority off the couch and into the voting booth. And if that happens, Congress will have a completely different make-up. Yes, the influence of gerrymandering might dilute the gains that would otherwise be made, but it will not prevent more progressives from getting into office.
More progressive voters, means more progressives get elected. And if that happens, Sanders will have more success than any of these so-called experts predict.
If we dont, they wont
If we dont get the disaffected back into the political process, then Democrats will be lucky to get Hillary elected. Shes a uniquely vulnerable candidate, with high distrust levels, and net negative favorability ratings both of which make it easy for the opposition to peal away votes. But demographics favor Democrats in presidential races so she might just squeak by.
But even if Hillary does survive the campaign and get elected, she will be facing a substantially similar Congress. Under the best of circumstances, the Democrats could win back the Senate but as long as 60 votes are needed for legislation, that wont change the balance of power, nor will it prevent gridlock.....
............The problem with the Democrats is that they havent been that much different.
Bernie Sanders offers an alternative one that just might excite the people and create a new power base, one in which the power emanates from the people and one in which the government works for the people.
Lets hope he succeeds. The only alternative is the same old game with different players. Thats what the self-appointed cognoscenti of the establishment just doesnt get.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/29/its-movement-stupid-why-bernie-can-deliver-promises-change-while-sensible-centrists
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License)
*Some bold is my own.
GO Bernie!!!!! GO Progressives!!!!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)"I can't hear you!!!"
That was great. Thanks for the giggles, bvar!!
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)Jackilope
(819 posts)Let the revolution and movement lead us on!
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)Damn the establishment!
Zynx
(21,328 posts)The fanatics are never able to deliver what they claim they can.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And maybe we'll actually be an OPPOSITION Party again and motivate people to vote.
If there is no difference, as we've seen, its tough to get people motivated to vote when no one is truly representing them.
And if that happens, we can accomplish so much.
Sure beats this status quo.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Do they still teach about the "fanatics" leading the American Revolution?
or has that one been sent down the Memory Hole too.
I believe that the "fanatics" who wrote the Constitution knew what they were doing.
The only criticism I have is that we should have done more Jefferson, and less Hamilton,
and that WE have allowed the chipping away of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights,
and let our government assume those powers that were forbidden by the "fanatics" who wrote the thing.
What about Women's Suffrage...women winning the right to vote?
That was successful revolution.
The Labor Movement was also another successful revolution. It took both Political Parties working together over 40 years to wipe out most of the gains from those "fanatics" who shed their blood in the Labor Revolution.
There have been some very successful near bloodless revolutions in many Latin American Countries over the last 15 years. There would be more without the USA interfering, and funding the Right Wing (Death Squads and all) in those countries.
It is where the RICH ride Public Transportation.
--mayor of Bogota
VIVA Democracy!
It can happen here too.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)And voters know it. Turn-out in our County for a state senate election last fall featuring a "law 'n order" R and a blah establishment D was 36% - giving the R a huge win. Turnout throughout the district was about the same .
What was that study recently that showed that what ordinary voters want have about zero effect in DC?
However "disappointing" the revolution may be, how much worse can it do? Just look at the last 40 years.
I forgot to add - that Senate election? It was the determinate in which party would rule the Capitol. And still, people stayed home - totally uninspired.
Broward
(1,976 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That's their own Madison Avenue quality buzz word.
The fact is when Reagan broke the Unions the Democrats lost their primary source of funding so they turned to the banks. In return they gave the banks everything they wanted as far as deregulation.
It took Democrats YEARS to make Wall Street consider Democrats to be their friends and they will be DAMNED to have all of that destroyed by some old guy from a tiny state full of cows.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)Untill he appointed Geitner, Summers, et al and sent everyone home . At least for me, that was the end. I knew we'd been had. What a sorrow that was. It still hurts. I can't forget my g'dtr calling me the morning after the election in and saying, "Nana! Obama '08 won!" (She'd heard "Obama '08" from us so often she thought it was his name).
I don't think Bernie would send us home. Maybe I'm a fool again, but I honestly don't think so. Obama was a nearly blank slate. Bernie's record says otherwise.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)if he'd governed from the left?
I personally doubt the genned-up backlash against single payer have done more damage than the genned-up backlash against the ACA?
In fact, I think he could have defanged the 'Baggers (they are the remnants of the hard-core Shrubbites) right out of the gate with single payer.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... congress?!!?
Sanders track record on mobilizing sucks, SP didn't even pass in VT....
VT!!!!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If you need to warp your reasoning that much to enable your support for Hillary, you are officially suffering from self induced delusions.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)Real change has never been accomplished without the people. Look at the women's movement, the voter rights movement, the labor movement, the GLBT movement. Look at Fight for $15. Look at OCCUPY, which for all the fun made of it changed the conversation in this country. People. Us.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Wrong. It's working with or without the obstructionists in Congress including the angry Independents.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and so is the DOW.
Problem is, what kind of jobs are those? Good quality, or not? Full-time or part? Well-paid, benefits, possibilities for advancement? Rising wages? (hah) Where did all the gains go, as the economy has recovered? You know where they went, and it wasn't to average Americans.
Obama did a pretty good job, under the circumstances, but he bought into way too much crap from the disloyal opposition ...or too much of it was his already.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Industries that our fathers worked, with UNIONS, benefits, and retirement are ALL GONE,
replaced with what used to be considered part time high school jobs which are NOW the main income for many families.
I'm glad I'm old, but I am ashamed of the World we are leaving for our children.
OWS was right (and I'm very proud of them),
Our fathers and grandfathers who shed blood in the LABOR movement were right (and I'm proud of them).
Bernie is right too (and I'm proud of him, and proud to be a supporter in the tradition of my great grandfather who shed blood for Organized LABOR),
The time is right for a Bernie revolution.
Yes. There has been an increase in service jobs, and even some Non-UNION manufacturing jobs (shit wages, no benefits), but what YOUR graphs do NOT show is:
How much of our "recovery" has gone to the top 1%, and how much to the Working Class and Poor?
I know.
Do you?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Saw that in a chart I googled yesterday. Beyond that I'd say that just about any job can be unionized or not, which is to say crappy or not, depending on a lot of circumstances including state laws that are beyond the Obama administration's direct control. Our parents' unionized jobs are often performed nowadays by poorly paid undocumented workers. That's mainly up to states to fix but the Obama administration has been doing its part and more to create the jobs that have to be there in the first place.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Oh, Yes!!!!
The TPP that Obama has negotiated in secret is going to be so GOOD for the American Working Class......NOT.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And rent is exploding as wages decrease.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-graziosi/helping-tenants-and-profi_b_9100406.html (1/29)
But, EVERYTHING'S FINE!
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Rephrasing the abstract to enhance readability. Mostly just reformatted but a few reworded sections are in parenthesis:
Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination,
and two types of interest-group pluralism:
Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism
(Each of these 4 theories offer) different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy:
average citizens;
economic elites;
and
organized interest groups (be they) mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model.
We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,
while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
"...Americas claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
I don't know if we will get another chance to change things if we wait for them to further consolidate their power. I especially believe that Hillary's court appointees will not be inclined to limit the power of money.
Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,006 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)they make progressive noises and token efforts to get us to vote for them so they can carry water for corporations and banks.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Read the piece earlier on Common Dreams...Atcheson's article makes sense...to all who take the time to think...
Uncle Joe
(58,272 posts)Thanks for the thread, RiverLover.
mythology
(9,527 posts)The parties are more polarized than they have been in the past. This is an objectively correct statement. And yet the author spews out fact free claims that the party has drifted further right and closer to the Republicans. I really don't understand why people get this so wrong so frequently, given that political scientists have presented a veritable boatload of data proving that the parties are more polarized.
I'm sorry if sourced quantifiable statistics get in the way of your desire to claim that Sanders is somehow going to lead the Democrats out of some ideological wilderness, or that Clinton is somehow going to change from being the woman who voted the same as Sanders 93 percent of the time when they were both in the Senate, but the article doesn't even come close to supporting its claims.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/
http://io9.gizmodo.com/its-been-150-years-since-the-u-s-was-this-politically-1590076355
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/13/polarization-in-congress-has-risen-sharply-where-is-it-going-next/
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)(republican lites) is very verifiable. We saw it happen in 2014 and we will see it again this year. We have seen the states taken over by rethugs because the centrists running against them didn't offer a clear difference.
Wake up!
People don't vote if there is no one representing them. We need to be the opposition party again. Lesser-evilism is getting us & the country nowhere.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)I have always observed as a vote of 'no confidence'. People stay home when they lose belief in the system. People feel played when forced to vote lesser of two evils.
The giant turnouts in 2008 and 2012 showed more voter confidence. This may be one important legacy of President Obama, getting out great numbers of voters. We were breaking out of 8 abusive Bush years.
Now we have awoken further enough to see through the illusions of their games and refuse to be played. The majority is silent no more.
amborin
(16,631 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)If he can deliver the passionate enthusiasm needed to actually enact his agenda, the first sign wil be the primaries. if he cannot, the first sign will also be the primaries.
Iowa is a very good first indicator: is the politics of passion sufficient to overcome Republican roadblocks? We shall see. If he can't win Iowa, how's he supposed to enact his agenda through the Republican Congress.
First test. How will he do?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)But TRUE Progressives see what's possible and say....