"Independent", "Democrat" and opting out versus opting into the system

[forjusticethunders]

Let's say I, justicethunders, is a socialist lefty who wants to see my views represented in national politics. I have 3 choices:

1: Not get involved
2: Get involved with a 3rd party with no chance of winning
3: Support the Democratic Party while trying to move them left but at the same time compromise with more conservative members of the party even if I vociferously disagree with them and debate with them.

Which option is the MOST likely to give me influence?

The problem is that a lot of people on the Left have this cartoon version of their own history where the people "rise up" and "overthrow the system" and everything was hunky dory. But this ignores the years and decades of underground, behind the scenes organizing, debate, persuasion and outreach that led up to those big conflagrations and big realignments. And yes, oftentimes it requires compromise, it requires some level of acceptance of the system even if you find it inherently unjust, because the endgoal is to help the people downtrodden by the system. Socialist and Social Democratic parties have been compromising with the Establishment for decades, often after life and death battles with said Establishment. Yeah, it doesn't jive with the cartoon revolutionary fantasy of overthrowing your ideological class enemies and shit. But when Von Bismarck implements national healthcare and welfare, or Dwight Eisenhower sends in the troops to integrate the school and his Republican Party are extolling unions, does it matter that the process wasn't as pure as you'd like? Yes you can try for a straight overthrow if things get bad enough, but things in America aren't nearly that bad yet, and revolutions have a lot of unintended consequences that you want to avoid if you possibly can. But if the Left opts out of the "corrupt" system (instead of say, trying to make it less corrupt), stops trying to struggle at the small and medium scale level, and gets lost in symbolism, then that clears space for other forces - aka corporate forces - to take over. The DLC filled the vacuum that unions and other legacy left institutions left behind in order to continue winning elections. Thus, the rise of the Third Way in the face of Republican dominance.

Ultimately, there is a large and powerful movement for a more progressive framing of society. I support this reframing but it's not going to happen through a political overthrow, not because of "corruption" but because many normal, everyday people struggling in this system see the Democratic Party as their lone bulwark against rightist oppression, despite the many flaws and shortcomings of the Establishment, and the wishes and aspirations of those people must be respected. The forces of the Left, represented by Bernie, failed to do so, and spectacularly so. But what CAN be done is, through negotiation, respectful debate, compromise and mutual understanding, the party can be moved, but it won't happen if progressive forces opt out of the process or decide that a fascist Trump/Cruz presidency should fall on the heads of the most oppressed people in society for having the temerity to not vote for the favored progressive candidate. Yes, it sucks to settle for incrementalism but if we had settled for incrementalism in 2000 or earlier than we'd be a lot farther along in 2016.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Our system has evolved overtime to a much better system than that handed us

by the founding father's revolution. The Constitution as enacted had significant flaws. It evolved through 27 amendments, one civil war, numerous legal decisions, and many grassroots movements to where we are today.

By design, it is impossible to institute revolutionary change from inside. Three coequal and independent branches of government put massive changes beyond reach. Even programs like Social Security were not instituted as they are today, but evolved, mostly for the better, to what we have now. It has proven very good, though not perfect, and instituting and protecting change for the better.

[RobertEarl]

4. I think the point is

We need revolutionary change and to institute it as rapidly as possible it is necessary for a revolutionary leader to be elected.

Reagan's was described as a revolution and it can be argued that much changed because of him as a leader.

We are presently faced with Bernie and his campaign to revolutionize the system from within. If the People neglect to accept that opportunity then no change will happen, or change that does happen will be for the worse.

I have worked in the system for years and been called a radical, etc. but the changes I have helped move were for the better because, like Bernie, I believe in democracy and the People.

[forjusticethunders]

5. It took 35 years for the radicals to even BEGIN to overturn the New Deal

As late as 1972 RICHARD FUCKING NIXON was for a UBI. Bernie Sanders isn't proposing a UBI in 2016.

it takes time in either direction.

[RobertEarl]

6. It does take time

Having a leader in power who believes change needs to happen makes a lot of difference in that time factor.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. The system, as designed, does not accept revolutionary change.

You need a President, a super majority in both houses of the US Congress that thinks exactly as the President wants them to, and a Judiciary that will be friendly to accepting whatever changes are made against a tsunami of lawsuits by those who don't agree.

Even under FDR, who was elected in extraordinary times, managed only a fraction of what he wanted from a Congress that was more amenable than one we have seen since the 60's. His attempt to pack the judicial branch failed. Ultimately, WWII stopped real attempts to change the nature of our society and led directly to the American Empire.

Neither Sanders nor Clinton will institute any changes anywhere near those as great as the ACA (which needs a lot of improvement) because they will not have a Congress to do the work of legislation. If we don't retake the Senate, their first year will be consumed by political wrangling over their appointments. With the death of Scalia, Republicans have proven that they can simply choose not to advise or consent to a Supreme Court Justice. I would not be surprised if an incoming Democratic Administration that did not have a friendly Senate is told that they will not accept any of appointments Supreme Court that is not a clone of Scalia.

Ultimately the so-called Reagan Revolution was not a revolution, merely a change in direction created by a reformation of various voting blocks that brought him to power. He tinkered around the edges of social security, lowered and raised taxes, and stalled attempts to makes changes for the better, but he did nothing like the big programs that were brought in by FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson. In fact, Johnson with his great society was the last President, who made substantial changes for the better to the system.

It is easy to call something a revolution but much harder to make the changes that prove it.

[RobertEarl]

8. Well

You elect H and there will be no change at all. Except that she will probably try to get along with a congress that will want to impeach her from day one.

Elect Bernie and we will see many new people get involved and that is where the revolution gets feet.

I have seen what citizen participation can do to the system and make it change its ways. One man's efforts have already altered the course recently. To say otherwise is just plain poppy-cock.

Bernie is a leader that can lead a revolution.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Republicans will have no trouble changing the target of their hate to whichever Democrat wins

the oval office.
They desire total control of al branches of government, not to govern.
Sanders will be treated no better.

[RobertEarl]

10. That right there

Is a sample of why this country is so fucked. We can't do nothing is the same old shit I have heard and heard time and again. THE SAME OLD SHIT.

You have nothing and no wisdom to offer us. What even post here?

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. I did not say we can do nothing, only that doing anything is very difficult.

But you are welcome to your opinion.

[RobertEarl]

12. No kidding?

Fighting the establishment is going to be difficult? You just now figured that out?

[forjusticethunders]

14. But where's the revolution

in the primaries? He got massively outvoted despite making a lot of noise.

Revolutions need numbers, and they need engagement. Engagement means not being "independent" because the parties are too pure for you, and it means doing what is required to make your voice heard, not whining when you don't take it seriously.

[RobertEarl]

15. Seriously?

One year ago Bernie had 3%.

All the press ignored him, the party did everything they could do to beat him up and he is running against the most widely known person ever! And now he's somewhere around 45%.

And you sit there and ask where is the revolution? I can't help you if you so willfully wish to remain blind.

[forjusticethunders]

16. So you want a participation trophy?

Revolutions also require winning. Losing by 3 touchdowns instead of 6 is still getting your ass beat.

Also someone was going to get that "anybody but Hillary" vote.

[RobertEarl]

17. That all ya got?

Don't waste my time, K?

[geek tragedy]

2. here in NYC, any change at the local level happens via the Democratic

party.

If someone in NYC says they're an independent, it means they really don't care who's mayor, their city council rep, their state assembly rep, or the state senator, or their borough president, or the judges in their community.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. I'm sure that's why you guys have been electing Republican mayors

They might as well be Democrats though since nobody can tell the difference.

[Fumesucker]

25. A noun, a verb and 9/11 says hi!

[geek tragedy]

26. so does Joe Lhota nt

[msongs]

13. independent - I choose intentionally NOT to vote in a party primary but I will WHINE/charge fraud

if I attempt to do so and am blocked

[ContinentalOp]

18. Revolutions require hard work.

You have to donate $27, post memes on social media, and maybe even attend a rally!

[TheBlackAdder]

19. Primaries should be closed, but party declaration should be right up to the casting of a vote. nt

[CajunBlazer]

20. That's a logical approach

At least for a "lefty". Yours is one of the more intelligent OP's I've seen posted on GD-P. You and I fall on different parts of the political spectrum. I thought I was a big liberal until I started interacting others on DU and have become convinced that compared to some, especially the most zealous Sanders supporters, I am really am a left of center moderate.

I too would like to see ours converted to a more progressive society which would lift up the most disadvantaged among us, but I am also a realist that understands the current political situation and long ago became reconciled with the fact that the only realistic way of moving toward the society that I seek is incremental change.

Even though you may be more to the left than me, I applaud your realistic approach.

[Barack_America]

21. The Democratic Party gets most of its money from corporations...

...and the general 1%.

So donations are a poor measure of support.

If not for declining numbers of registered Democrats, how else will they know they are in trouble before getting their asses handed to them in elections?

I present as evidence the 2014 midterm elections.

I want them to know we're walking away. They NEED to know we're walking away.

[forjusticethunders]

23. you do realize that

"getting its ass handed to it in elections"

is what got us a more pro-corporate Dem party, right? The DNC was a reaction to losing big to Nixon Reagan Bush.

[Barack_America]

24. And now that era is over...

...and they'll get their asses handed to them if they don't pivot left.

A new generation has come of age, and no one represents them.

Both parties are clamoring for the support of aging generations of weakening influence.

Bad strategy, which will be reflected (again) in November.

[forjusticethunders]

22. I was actually borderline "Bernie or Bust" for a while

Then I looked a mirror and a semi-disabled black man looked back and I realized that the stakes are too high to insist on "purity". Especially since Bernie isn't all that pure himself. I was already critical of how he handled BLM (but he rebounded at least initially, that Liberty U speech was amazing and I really thought he was getting it), the F-35 stuff is pretty much the kind of "appearance of corruption" type thing Hillary gets slammed for, as is the NRA stuff (yes he's been MOSTLY good on guns but that 2006 vote regarding gun maker immunity and how the NRA supported him for his first winning campaign does give one pause). Also he actually kicked out war protesters from a defense plant back in the day.

But either way, between even someone as trashy as Lieberman, let alone Hillary, and an actual fascist, you vote against the fascist, period.

[Dem2]

27. Thank you for this very thoughtful post.

You have encapsulated the dilemma many face when deciding what to do now that it appears that the more establishment Democratic candidate will likely win the primary.