How to turn short-range compromises into long-range victories?

[Zhade]

I asked this in another thread, but feel it bears wider discussion. The debate was straight-ticket voting for Democratic candidates, and the possibility of thereby enabling some Dems who themselves have supported and enabled some of the worst Republican travesties enacted upon the American people and the world.

My question is this, and is asked in all sincerity: how do we change the minds of Democrats who support such things as torture, indefinite lawyerless detention, warrantless spying and other abuses?

If we vote them in, as is hoped by many in spite of their stances on these issues, will the Dems feel pressured to change? If so, how do we accomplish this?

Is there more of a plan than hoping and wishing for them to support us once we've supported them (often against our ideals)? Is there more we can do that has not been tried? How do we show them they are wrong to support such things?

(I am assuming common decency in the reader and thus opposition to the above illegalities. Clearly, if you support such things, you need to see a mental health professional, and fast.)

I've heard the same tired ling all along - "support the Dem, s/he'll be better than the Republican!" Well, okay, let's go with that premise, and allow me to ask how we will change things by giving power to those who already aren't standing up for our rights, for the truth, and for justice.

If you want us to betray our conscience to vote for somehow whose own conscience seems missing or quieted, what will we be able to count on in the way of support for change, and how can we bring it about?

This is a serious question asked in the hope of avoiding partisan sniping and focusing on a way to change. All respectful debate is encouraged.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

1. We need to get majorities ...

in the House and(fingers-crossed)Senate. We do the House cleaning in future elections ... we will remember those who failed us.

[Zhade]

3. Isn't that what we said in 2000, and 2002, and 2004?

When do we actually start this house-cleaning, and how do we accomplish it?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

6. well ... we didn't get the majority ...

... but we're a hell of a lot closer this time. I hope people will look at the very important BIG picture and back the Dems all the way ... because we've been hogtied with this partisan Admin. and Congress.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I would like to get a majority for the simple reason and goal

of taking over committees to instigate oversight and investigations and hopefully impeachment. But I have lost all desire to try to persuade people to vote in a way to achieve that goal. That has to be something they want too particularly if voting to achieve that conflicts with their own ideology. I am not into cheerleading nowadays.

[Zhade]

4. There's a start. Thank you.

Now - assuming we get that majority, how do we ensure that a Conyers and not a Lieberman gets into that position?

[blondeatlast]

7. COMMITTEES is the word! Every D on the ballot is a vote for Conyers.

Just think of him on the Judiciary...

Almost too good to consider at this point.

[Zhade]

10. Is that true, though?

Can we count on them voting for Conyers?

If they go with a Nelson over a Conyers, how do we hold them accountable?

[blondeatlast]

13. We can't count on ANYTHING. This is politics, and sadly

It may not be Conyers, but it won't be Arlen Specter, either.

I'll take Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid-D (Imperfect) over Senate Majority Bill Frist (RRR-Catkiller) NOW. We can weed the garden later, if necessary.

I've been voting too long to believe in the Perfect Candidate, but I can't tolerate living in the United States of Torturing, Military-Industrial Complex Warmongering, Radical Religious Right, NeoCon Hell anymore.

I want SOMETHING of my country left for my 9 year old son.

It might not convince you, but it's all I have for now.

BTW, you are asking some good questions here.

[Zhade]

17. I've got an eight-year-old boy myself. I love him dearly.

That's why I'm asking. :)

But we have to be honest - it wasn't just Republicans who gave us the MIC, for example. How do we weed later (and I think there's no question there are some elected Dems who need to be retired almost as much as the Republicans, even if their damage is to a lesser degree)?

[Zhade]

5. Come on, people. I'm willing to work with you.

All I need is an answer as to how we'll hold our reps accountable after November if they wind up or continue supporting the kinds of reprehensible things some of them have so far supported and/or enabled.

What do we do if one of our Senators votes for further restrictions of Roe V Wade after being elected, for example? How do we hold them accountable for betraying our causes and principles?

If you want to take away our ability to hold them accountable for their past votes this November, you're going to give us a way to hold them accountable afterward.

[blondeatlast]

9. Where to begin?

I'd like to see the Dems do what the Rs do--threaten to withhold campaign money and on-the-ground support.

The party can do it writ large, we can do it on a smaller scale. "No, Senator Pederson (D-God Willing), I don't like the way you voted on that stem-cell research funding increase, and I will donate to the DNC this year, but not specifically to your re-election, and I will strongly consider financially backing your primary opponent..."

"And of course, you'll be hearing from me soon as to your next boneheaded vote. And I promise to coo like crazy at your poor staffers when you introduce a great piece of legislation."

If we can win a majority in one house, I'll feel free to bitch and moan all I want about how my D Rep/Sen voted.

But that's a big IF.

[blondeatlast]

8. If third parties had a prayer of taking a race I'd consider it.

But in my red area, a vote that doesn't go to the D registers another vote for the R whether that was my intention or not.

It has nothing to do with fraud or Diebold, just the sociopolitical makeup of my area. And yes, there are plenty of third parties that qualify, but the Rs get nearly a walk in the park here.

It's come to this for me--it can't possibly get any worse even with the DINOs I unfortunately have offered to me.

Since I'm active and even my R Senators and Reps know me by name, you can bet they will know where I stand if they get elected--and I intend to hold them to the fire. I EARNED that much.

If I don't vote Pederson, Jim-D (Conyers), I vote for John Kyl.

God help me NO. I can't do it.

Straight Conyers--er, Dem, ticket for me this year.

[Zhade]

11. But my question is, HOW will you hold them to the fire?

They're in office. Maybe you helped vote them in. They're secure in their position. What do you use to hold their feet to the fire, besides a promise to do so NEXT time?

And when that time comes, will you be able to hold them accountable, or will this process play itself out again and again?

The only thing I see them caring about is our vote, and if we just give it to them even when they oppose our principles, what other tool do we have to correct them with?

[blondeatlast]

14. Let's start with the fact that I'm known by name already in my Senators'

and Representatives's offices--all RRR-Reprobates, btw.

I'm pretty sure when they see my number on the caller ID that they roll their eyes and fight over which one of them must take the call, but they are MY servants. And one of thenm does listen, each and every time. I'm polite, but very firm.

If I start calling Senator Pederson D- (Best I Can Do), I imagine I'll be talking to some friendlier staffers, but as time goes on, they will probably argue over who takes the nice-Democratic-lady-who-fights-really-hard-for-stem-cell-research's call, too.

But because they know there's a reasonable chance of getting my vote, and my hard-earned money, they might pay attention beyond a tallymark in the "pro" stem-cell-research funding category, for instance.

At the risk of oversimplifying your feelings, the fight BEGINS on Election Day, IMHO.

Anyone who thinks that their vote is enough isn't paying anywhere near enough attention--or care--to the matters at hand.

You have to tell them how you feel.

Loudly.

And often.

[Zhade]

18. I couldn't agree more that voting is only the beginning.

Hence my frustration at the seemingly large number of DUers who appear to think a Dem majority is all we need to concern ourselves with.

It's a start - IF the majority will work on our goals and uphold our principles. Many aren't. Yet we'll vote them right back in this November, and they'll get the message that they'll be bitched at until reelection, at which point we'll be forced to vote for them over a Republican again.

How do we break this cycle? It's not getting us anywhere.

[blondeatlast]

23. A bit of personal perspective. I'm in a historically very Red county.

Add to that a pretty Red state except for pockets of hope.

Slowly as the population grows it's become pretty much purple, but the blue tint is tenuous at best.

I think that's why I tend to be a bit more of a pragmatist with my reps--I'm happy to see ANY leftward swing, although the further left is the better. I mean, my Sens are Kyl-RRR (Bushlicker) and McCain-RRR-(Hypocritical Whore Bottom-feeder).

Sometimes I wonder how I stand it.

I hope that the DUers who think it's over on November 8 smarten up, though.

As sad as it sounds, I just am looking forward to a little bit warmer reception when I call my slightly-lefter reps starting in January... (sigh)

I'll do my best to keep them looking to the left when they get there. IF they get there.

Right now I have no hope whatsoever and sadly have quit contacting my RRR lowlifes in most cases. There's only so much defeat one can take.

[Zhade]

25. *I* wonder how you stand it!

Since your reps are useless, what kind of strategy do you see being successful in helping the population of your state realize they want a lot of the same things we do, and the Repubs won't give it to them?

[blondeatlast]

28. My sorry take on it (YIKES!):

What the Dems can do:

*overturn Right-to-be-Exploited-Whether-Union-or-Not law as soon as possible. Maybe not a direct Dem party thing, but encouraging candidates to address it on a local level would benefit in the long run. The RRRs simply can't win if we go on the offensive with RT Be Exploited.

*Reframe the border-crossing debate towards enforcement, putting the onus on the employers. We've fallen right into the Rovian trap of scapegoating the border-crossers and it works perfectly since the parties (little p) in power know full well the only effective answer is to cut off the opportunity for crossers to work. It's very unlikely to happen with our heavy tourism, construction, and farming industries, but it would truly pay off for the Dems in the long run.

And I can't be convinced it isn't playing on some subconscious racism, either.

Until we can show Joe Average that the RRReprobates PROFIT big-time from illegal immigration, we're lost.

That's at least a start, but it takes real initiative at the local and state level and in our reddish state, we need some extremely good party leadership to get it going.

And I would absolutely agree that initiative is a major void on both our local and state level and the DNC, too.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. The point of voting third party wouldn't be that they might win.

If significant numbers of people vote for a party with strongly left-wing policies, the Democrat standing against them will realise that if they move to agree more with those policies they will get more votes, and may well act accordingly.

The flip side of this is that at the time, that democrat will get fewer votes, and so you're more likely to get a Republican. As such it's a tactic to use very sparingly. FWIW, I'd only ever advocate that kind of protest voting when you're *confident* of an overall Democratic majority, unless the democratic candidate is unbelievably egregious.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Thanks for the attempt to be rational in a debate that often runs .....

....... to the irrational. Kudos to you on that alone!

I think there's no one answer. I dare say some of the votes are quite simply a political calculus. They come from conservative states and vote in a way that reflects their constituents. On the particular votes of late, they were going to pass anyway so there was no downside to voting for it. I find it hard to imagine that any of them who voted with the repubs actually voted their true conscience.

If that's anywhere close to true, then I suspect we can see some moderation were the Dems again in control.

Now, if they voted in a way we don't like, then we need to judge each politician on his own merits (or lack thereof). If there's a real disagreement on one issue, then we'd probably do best to let it go. If there's broad disagreement, then we need to work in the primaries to oppose.

But when it comes down to it, and all the choice we have is between a bad dem and a worse GOPer, I'll choose the Dem virtually every time.

[Zhade]

20. I'm guilty of some irrational, yet justified, anger myself.

Hence the thread, for which I thank you for participating.

I find it hard to imagine that any of them who voted with the repubs actually voted their true conscience.

So are they then ignoring their conscience for political expediency? If so, how can we trust them to work with us if they are in the majority?

Now, if they voted in a way we don't like, then we need to judge each politician on his own merits (or lack thereof). If there's a real disagreement on one issue, then we'd probably do best to let it go. If there's broad disagreement, then we need to work in the primaries to oppose.

There can be no disagreement on some things - like a woman's right to control her own body, or that wiretapping without a warrant is ILLEGAL. How do we hold accountable elected Dems who oppose the former and support the latter when we've rewarded them with another term? We're no threat to them at all at that point.

But when it comes down to it, and all the choice we have is between a bad dem and a worse GOPer, I'll choose the Dem virtually every time.

Okay, fine, but THEN what do we do if that bad Dem, say, votes to allow b*s* to imprison citizens without rights and torture them? Wait until the next election cycle, when we'll be forced AGAIN to vote for him over a worse Republican?

How do we break this pattern?

[welshTerrier2]

15. those voting for torture and war will never change

i'm not sure it's possible to turn short-range compromises into long-range victories ... fascinating topic though ... let's start right out with a big old k&r ... this is exactly the kind of topic we should spend more time talking about ...

i would start by asking how it's possible for anyone who hasn't completely lost their mind to vote for a pro-torture bill ... i assume there are two possibilities when someone does that ... first, they may be a Democrat in a very red state or district ... their motivation is purely political ... or second, they are mentally defective with an inadequate sense of right and wrong ... the question then is, if we "negotiate" with them, as individual candidates, to give them our near-term vote in exchange for their future opposition to torture or whatever other issues, it seems to me we have little if any leverage at all ... it would seem this candidate would always make the same political calculation ... unless we can convince them that our view is the majority view, they will remain in the same situation and make the same calculation if they are voting based solely on their political survival ... and if they are voting their conscience, however misguided, trading them our vote today is not likely to change their view on the issue later ... so it's hard to see how a compromise on our part buys us much bargaining power ...

but all is not lost ... i believe there is still room for negotiation and compromise ... this process would not likely be effective on a candidate by candidate basis but it might be very effective nationally ... suppose a group like PDA can develop a strong presence within the party on the national level ... with a strong national platform, it's possible that pressure could be brought to bear on individual candidates to support the party's platform and values ... and i think a clearer "party-wide centralized message" would likely benefit all our candidates ... while there's something to be said for customizing the message for local audiences, projecting a clear identity for the entire party is critically important ... so i think that if we pushed hard to organize ourselves more effectively, developed a forum to communicate to the party elite, we might be able to trade our support for some degree of shared power ... in today's climate, the party offers pretty much a "take it or leave it" ... that's a very unhealthy situation for all concerned ...

i do NOT believe candidate supporters who suggest we support their guy now and all will be wonderful after the election ... when the election passes, we are then cautioned about the next election and the one after that ... even if we had a majority, we would be warned that it could easily be lost if the party adopted "all that lefty stuff" ... the reality is that many who are now prominent in the party are moderate conservatives ... ultimately, what really needs to happen is that we have to beat them at their own game or refuse to play along ... whether we become a third party or a force within the Democratic party, if we are seen as a well-defined constituency, a constituency that will not "just go along" without being represented, only then can we effect the changes we want to see ...

k&r !! great topic, Zhade!!

[Zhade]

22. "it seems to me we have little if any leverage at all"

That's precisely the point I'm trying to make.

I am fully in support of the calls you've made in the past for "town hall"-type meetings with elected Dems. I think that's a step we desperately need to take, because - even here, where people should know better! - the idea that WE serve THEM (with our votes, money, and time) has taken root, and that's the fundamental opposite of liberal democratic politics.

If a way can be found to ensure 'DINOs' and the like are forced to pay heed to our demands for equality and justice for all, I wouldn't be so pissed at the thought of betraying my principles to vote for one.

Giving away our vote without such assurances, however, strikes me as a set-up for extreme disappointment, as the past six years have shown.

I want a Democratic majority in Congress, but NOT one that will take us for granted and sell out our (allegedly) shared principles!

[blondeatlast]

16. The battle BEGINS on Election Day.

We must BOSS our leaders around--be they RRR, Dem, Green, Hemp, etc.

Those of us who are as informed as we on DU are can't simply vote and think everything's going to be okay from that point on.

That makes it far too easy on our leaders--and that's how we get into the situation we face now.

Situation, hell. Let's call it a crisis.

We have to call and write and write and call our Congress people and petition and protest and tell our friends at the water-cooler what boneheaded, unConstitutional, embarrassing, unAmerican legislation was introduced yesterday--most of them have lives that don't involve a political-wonk website like DU--and they really shouldn't have to, but that's another story (lazy, corporate-whore media).

You can affect a fence-sitter's vote if they see you PERSONALLY as a catalyst. We who have the knowledge and donate money, time, and follow-up on those we work to elect are seen as representative of the people they serve.

I'm looking forward to a somewhat warmer voice on the other end after November when the caller-ID makes me known as a member of the freshman Senator's party, not the informed and polite but firm Democrat from the northern area of my Rep's district.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. The more power you have, the more purist you can be.

When you're in the minority, or only just in the minority you need to make concessions to the electorate to become to shore up your electoral position. When you have a comfortable majority, you want to make the best of it by ensuring that the government is as good as possible, even if that means being slightly less popular that it would otherwise be.

Now is the time to bite our tongues and vote straight D. As and when we have a strong electoral position, we can start being more choosy.

[Zhade]

24. Okay, what's a comfortable majority, and how do we define it rigidly?

(That prevents the lazy status quo types from moving the goalposts after the election.)

What kind of concessions are acceptable? Further shredding of our civil rights? More wars of choice? Continued abandonment of the American worker in exchange for slave-wage-fueled CEO bonuses?

When the elected Dem wants a concession we can't give - like saying torture is okay, when it's most emphatically NOT - how do we hold them accountable other than a planned-but-won't-happen vote against them next time around?

(And don't say 'we', you've already stated you're in England and thus can't vote here - not that your comments are unwelcome, of course.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. It's only a qualitative, not a quantitative position, I'm afraid.

How much one is willing to trade "probability of winning" for "degree of liberalism when one does so" will depend on one's own views.

To take the concrete case of the resent bill permitting torture and detention without trial, I'd advocate voting against/ a Democrat who voted to approve it if I expected the Democrats to end up with a majority of any size, but not if I didn't. On the other hand, if the Democrats had been in a position to stop the bill if they'd opposed it unanimously, I might well have advocated not supporting any Dem who didn't.

Those are just my standards. Trading off electability for desirability when elected is a universal principle (in the UK as much in the US); what the exchange rate is is a matter of personal conscience.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Absolutely -and the UK has had both extremes

In the 1980s, the Labour party were so involved in fighting internal battles (some of which would have been quite important to fight under other circumstamces) that they helped to keep the devil incarnate, Thatcher, in power.

Since 1997, it has been the opposite: power at all costs, and the Labour party in power has totally betrayed its principles, and indeed most decent principles. Blair has ended up to the right of some of Thatcher's Conservative predecessors. And we've ended up in a position where it's almost impossible to find a real alternative, because obviously we don't want to vote for the Tories, and Blair has shaped the Labour party, at least as regards those in potential leadership positions.

So it's hard to say what the ideal should be; but definitely somewhere in between the right-wing-enabling fights for purity within the left that we had in the early 80s, and the complete selling-out and power-at-all-costs addiction that we've witnessed here in recent years.

[blondeatlast]

26. I will be prouder than hell to bitch and moan about the Democratic

majority WHEN there is one.

You can bet I'll criticize them like crazy when they are actually in a position to create real change.

And WHEN they have the power, they better get on the ball and fast.

I'd like to see more from the DNC, too.

What was I saying about "I can't wait...?"

It looks like I've already begun... :rofl:

[blondeatlast]

21. What a great debate and well-framed in the OP. Few more recommends, maybe?

And a :kick: since there's no space for my nt anyway... :shrug:

[Zhade]

27. So are threads full of personal attacks more worthy of response?

First off, many thanks to those who replied. So far, a valuable discussion, and I appreciate that!

Now, how about a little more discussion? I figure, we're always hearing how we don't have serious talks about issues and whatnot, so...here's a chance to do so!

[blondeatlast]

29. Yet another plea for a recommendation or two and a

:kick:

This is the kind of dialog we need to be having.

It'll be even more crucial if we do manage to make some inroads in the Senate and/or House.

[blondeatlast]

31. Kicking for a QUALITY debate on the issue.

Just one more li'l :kick:ety...

[Zhade]

32. Thanks for the effort!

:)