If the Democratic Party only fights for Centrist policy, they can turn to Centrists for money.

[LooseWilly]

I got a call from a Democratic Party telemarketer this morning, asking for donations to maintain Democratic majorities in the 2010 elections.

"If the Democratic Party is only willing to fight for Centrist policy, then I think you'll have to turn to Centrists for donations. I'm not interested in donating to the party as things currently stand." I answered.

"Well, the House just passed a health care bill..." she pointed out.

"Yes, a health care bill with a weakened public option, mandates, and which will limit women's access to reproductive health care. If that's the best that the Democratic Party can do with a super majority, then I don't see any reason to care if the Democratic Party majorities are maintained or not. Try calling some Centrists if the Party is only interested in representing Flaming Centrists." I then enjoined her.

We concluded by each wishing the other a good day.

I hope that my disgruntlement is memorable enough to be mentioned to the phone banking supervisors/organizers.

... So, all you DUers who make arguments about "fact based reality" to defend the Democratic Party... here's a fact for you: You might want to take it upon yourselves to open your wallets wider, because I'm probably not the only leftist who isn't interested in paying good money to be told to sit down and STFU.

I can use the money I just saved to buy better whiskey for the next month... and the money I save the next time I'm contacted to help pay for the mandated health insurance I'm liable to have foisted upon me in the interests of trying to provide the Insurance Industry with one less theoretical justification for gouging the country with ever increasing rates (as if they won't just come up with another justification).

[Starry Messenger]

1. recommend

[Cant trust em]

2. That's totally fair. Donate to the people that get you excited.

If Obama doesn't get you fired up, then donate to a non-profit or something.

[BzaDem]

3. Question. You keep threatening "centrists" with doing less to elect Democrats. Why would they care?

I see this frame all the time. "Centrists" need to fear liberals, because liberals will stop funding/voting/whatever. And then Republicans will be put in power and the liberals can rejoice, knowing that they taught the centrists a lesson (that they have to move left).

But wouldn't "centrists" care less than you do about Republicans taking over again? By definition? After all, isn't the position of your caricature of a centrist closer to the Republican position than your position is? In other words, don't liberals have more to fear from Republican control than "centrists"?

[DontTreadOnMe]

6. No, the argument goes like this.

Centrist Democrats take the Progressive Left for granted, and the left is now realizing that "Republican" and "Centrist" are the same thing.

[BzaDem]

7. The "realization," if it actually exists as you describe, is very cyclical.

Most people would say that Gore and Bush were objectively very different (as opposed to "the same thing"). But there were a few people who thought otherwise, and they voted for Nader. After that election, they saw firsthand that their actions have consequences. And what happened? The Democratic party nominated an arguably more conservative candidate, and yet 90% of the Naderites left Nader and voted for Kerry. So if anyone is taking anyone for granted, it is the third party voters taking the Democrats for granted, as whenever the third party voters see the real consequences of not voting Democratic, they always seem to crawl back to the Democratic party.

[DontTreadOnMe]

9. lol!

"they always seem to crawl back to the Democratic party" -- such arrogance, but at least an admission that the Progressive Left really is not important to the Centrist party.

The Progressives didn't crawl back in NJ or Virgina last month.

[BzaDem]

13. No, but I don't think a huge number of them care as much about state level policy.

And just because I say this doesn't mean I like how it is. In other countries, they have a type of legislature where there can be third parties and progressives can vote for them without fearing that they are wasting their vote. That type of system in many ways is superior.

But we don't have that type of system. In our system, voting for a third party (or not voting) really is helping the Republicans. Doing so is irrational, which is why the in-your-face consequences of such an action (see 2000) usually cause them to come back to the Democratic party (in the case of 2000, 90% did).

[DontTreadOnMe]

17. You are missing one aspect.

The Republican Party is splitting too. There will be the "Moderate Republican" and "The Tea Party". Yes, they created an official party.

The Tea Party will not win the Primary, so they will run an "Independents".

And there you have it... so will the Dems. You can see it happening here on DU. The Progressive Party will run as Independents too... a four party system.
Then the election will be up for grabs, and who knows how scary it will end up -- a nutcase could actually win the election, not exactly a good thing for the country.

But the "crawling back" is over. Unemployment in this country will be the biggest issue for the next 10 years. The lost jobs are NOT coming back.
If you think the country is angry now, wait until next year.

[BzaDem]

20. I really doubt that many tea party folks will run as independents.

I definitely think that they will try to run in Republican primaries (probably hurting Republican chances in the general). But as for running third party, the Hoffman defeat was really their Nader moment. It will convince them (at least in the short term, until they forget and have to be reminded by another Hoffman-like defeat) that it is not productive even for tea party interests to run as a third party or vote for one.

[DontTreadOnMe]

24. Palin/Bachmann 2012

The foolishness of a Tea Party has only just started.

The wacky right-wing lawmaker Michele Bachmann, is scheduled to give a speech at the first National Tea Party Convention, which will take place in Nashville, TN in February.
Sarah Palin is also speaking. Watch for a Palin/Bachmann ticket to actually appear, and it will not be under the Republican Party.

If it happens, there will be other Independents/Progressives who will run as well - opening up the chances for a third party for real. Dem and Repubs are at ALL-TIME lows in popularity in both the House and Senate.

[LooseWilly]

25. Yet the Republican party takes notice when the tea baggers cost them an election.

They make sure to try to re-integrate the gripes of the tea baggers into their party platform.

The Democrats, on the other hand try to lecture liberals, tell them to shut up, and then go out and make a point of not re-integrating any of their gripes... and call that "compromise"/"reaching across the aisle".

It really is a shame that Nader is so bat shit out of touch... the few coherent things he says from time to time generally make sense, if only he could keep it up consistently.

[BzaDem]

26. I really don't think the Republican party is really integrating their grips into the platform.

Many of their more radical gripes (getting rid of the Fed) are not going anywhere. Other gripes are more general (too much spending, etc. etc.), and these general gripes are already in the platform. If anything, the Republican party is just pretending to not ignore the tea party people. There are going to be primary challenges, but there isn't much the Republican party establishment can do about primary challenges anyway.

[LooseWilly]

29. So you don't think the Republicans are falling back to the positions of their base?

You think they are going to let the Conservative Party idiots, and the Tea Baggers continue to mount primary challenges, rather than "falling in line"?

You don't think that, everytime an elected Republican apologizes to Rush Limbaugh, it's not a sign that the Republican Party is willing to "throw bones" to the rightist base of the party?

You don't see a contrast between that and the way that the Democratic Party tries to distance itself from, and marginalize, the liberals amongst the base of the party?

Obviously, if you don't see that... then you don't see the centrist elements of the Democratic Party trying to use the threat of another Bush to scare the left into submission to a centrist agenda (which I suspect is a left over strategy from the Clinton era when it was argued that beating Republicans was best done by being like Republicans).

Well... tell you what... if any liberals try to primary out the sitting centrists (Sestak v. Specter comes to mind)... I'll be happy to chip in for the liberal challengers. If that makes me a Leftist Tea Bagger, I can live with that.

Figuratively, or literally.

"Let's get ready to <primary> rumble !!"

[LooseWilly]

11. Ironically, Kerry is the reason I actually registered as a Democrat.

So I don't conceed your point that he is more conservative than Gore. In fact, I firmly believe that he's considerably more liberal than Gore. He sometimes compromises more than I'd like... but not beyond understandably necessary in many cases.

As to Gore v. Bush... I am one of those who voted for Nader. Gore campaigned conservative, and Bush campaigned just a bit more conservative still. Bush turned out to be more extreme than I would've imagined... if he'd just governed like his father, however, I don't think I would've seen any appreciable difference. Of course... I could argue that Obama is continuing so many of Bush's policies, that the differences can be argued to be less considerable than the continuities.

And therein is the rub. It was all nice and wonderful when the centrists appealed to the left to unify in the face of Bush-ian policy, but to then continue so many policies?

Tell you what... if I take a walk from the Democratic Party (after this brief sojourn within), I promise you I'll never come back. Happy?

[BzaDem]

15. You can promise all you want, but I really don't believe you.

Eventually, there will (unfortunately) be another really conservative president. You will then vote 4 years later for the Democratic nominee (and find some way to justify it). I of course can't prove this at this point in time, so we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree about your future actions.

[LooseWilly]

30. If this administration continues as it has, and Congress can't take advantage of a super majority?

Then I guarantee you I will not vote for another Democrat for president... unless that candidate is a flaming liberal.

By 2012 I'll be old enough... so I'll start voting for myself for President.

:patriot:

[vssmith]

38. The Centrist have done that in the Republican Party too

In the Republican Party the right wing is pissed because every time they help elect someone that gives lip service to their priorities; after the election that person turns back to the middle. It seems they are in revolt with Limbaugh, Beck and Palin. Paul Krugman said that the Republican Party is being taken over by the people it exploited.

Maybe it is time for liberals to revolt too

[LooseWilly]

8. Logically your point is valid... and as a result liberals are taken for granted.

The flawed point in your logic, however, is assuming that there is a tangible difference for a liberal between the Republican-Lite Centrists, and the Hard Core Republicans. However, if they both leave a bad taste in the mouth (like Budweiser vs. Miller), then liberals actually have less to fear than the centrists... because the liberals get nothing either way, while the centrists face the prospect of being in power, or not in power.

I think the best illustration would be to see the Republicans as the party of the rich, and the Democrats as the party of the middle class... while we dumbshit liberals actually concern ourselves with irrelevancies like the lower/working class. If the Republicans take over, the middle class loses out, if the Democrats take over, the middle class loses out considerably less to the rich...

Framed thusly, the question could be seen as: Is the middle class willing to champion some issues of the poor/working class, in order to take power? Or are they too afraid of what the rich might think of them if they did so? (Or have they just digested too many of the Republican talking points to even realize that the poor/working class exists?)

The poor/working class are screwed either way... but potentially less screwed if one or the other party is willing to "coalition up". Hell, at this point I'll donate to the RNC if they're willing to champion LGBT rights (and can convince me it's not just a lie). At least it would be something.

"How about throwing 'us' a frickin' bone?"

[BzaDem]

18. Again, I'm not saying I like that this is the way it is.

Policywise, I probably agree with you a lot more than you think. I'm just stating that in our structural two-party system (as compared to multi-party parliamentary systems), liberals can be taken for granted, because there is no legitimate third option. I would much rather have a system like instant runoff voting, where there is a legitimate third option (in the sense that voting for the third option doesn't simply throw your vote away).

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I had pretty much that same conversation with a Dem caller last weekend

I was told all calls were recorded and the better ones played for the people in charge. I was told mine would be played for them.

[LooseWilly]

14. Cheers...

Of course, it's hard not to be cynical about any of it making any difference.

Ahh well, whiskey is more trustworthy than most politicians anyway...

[Riverman]

5. No more money nor campaign volunteering as I have done for

years for democrats. I agree with Howard Dean that with the current health insurance care bills, the democrats will lose big in 2010. And, given the decision to Vietnamize (my word - did you see Bill Moyer the other night comparing the language by Johnson and democrats in 1964 as to why they felt they needed to escalate that war and what Obama and folks are saying now)Afganistan, I see no hope, nor change, that I can believe in now. So very sad!

[LooseWilly]

19. Reminds me of the call to volunteer to pass HCR, before anyone would say what reforms there'd be.

Go out door to door to argue for 3 talking points that are so vague that there's nothing to talk about?

And Afghanistan... I saw an in depth analysis of underlying corporate interests behind the whole fiasco on progressiveindependent (easy to find, I won't bother with a link)... a long analysis, which I haven't finished reading... detailing the politics of "pipelineistan". Funny that funding for that fiasco is easy to come by, but Education gets de-funded at the drop of a hat...

[frebrd]

10. Damn straight! I'm done giving them money.....

They don't get me on the phone (I screen my
calls) but when I get e-mails asking for donations, I unsubscribe.

[G_j]

12. K&R

[anonymous171]

16. My position as well. If they won't fight for me, I won't fund them. nt

[sendero]

21. I've always been a bit cynical ..

... about politics, but this is a really new low.

Washington has been completely co-opted. There is no real point in voting any more, your leaders don't care what you want anyway.

I'm done with it all and I'm certainly done with giving money to any of the bastards.

[msongs]

22. our local dem congress candidate is a real liberal, we work for him, not the right wing dems nt

[LooseWilly]

23. Agreed.

I'll donate to Barbara Boxer directly, and am happy to vote for my congresswoman... but the Party is on its own.

[rucky]

27. aw, shit. we're all broke, anyway. n/t

[FatDave]

28. The saddest part is...

...people who pay attention to politics, watch it daily, vote in every election, are not centrists. They are the party bases, and they're polarized. There's very little middle ground there, they're either liberal or conservative. Even most registered independents--the guaranteed voters among them anyway--lean strongly one way or the other. The people in the middle, maybe they vote in every presidential election, but they're not really tuned into policy. They base their vote on who they like the best (the old "who would you rather have a beer with?" factor). Do you think the undecided voter is undecided because they're tuned in to the issues? If they were, they wouldn't be undecided. With that middle 10 to 15% or so, it's personality, not policy.

Now, sure as my name's Nathan Arizona, a handful of people are going to pipe up here and say "I'm a proud centrist democrat and I vote in every mid-term election and have never missed a vote in my life, DLC4LIFE!!!" That's great, but you are the exception that proves the rule.

For winning those personality voters over, 2008 could not have been a better year for democrats. We had the cool young guy who also happened to be the best speaker to run for the office in at least a generation. They had the "get off my lawn" guy.

But the Democratic Party seems to think that because these swing voters will vote either way, it means politically they're in the middle. They're not. They just haven't formed strong opinions, because who can watch cable news when So You Think You Can Dance is on? But invariably, Democrats will spend all of their effort courting these people with policy no matter how much it alienates their base.

Republicans get this. You do not win elections by appealing to the centrists, you win them by appealing to your party's base. If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. All you have to do for the easily-distracted middle is win the likability contest, which should be a breeze given the disposition of the average republican. We still manage to nominate some pretty dreary personalities though.

All we've got to do is run a liberal with personality, and he/she will win in a landslide, because they will energize the base and appeal to the casual voter.

[Telly Savalas]

31. If the Republican approach is correct, then why are there Democratic majorities

in both the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House? Doesn't their monumental failure suggest that pandering to a mythical "base" while disregarding the desires of the electorate is a poor strategy?

[FatDave]

32. Democratic majorities in the House and Senate? Hard to tell sometimes.

Far as the president goes, we won it largely on personality. We had all of it; there was none on the Republican side. Also, McCain is not a favorite of the Republican base (they're usually downright hostlile to him) and Obama did have appeal to the liberals (though a lot of that's worn off).

2008 congressional gains were largely Obama coat-heels and still some Bush resentment. I should have made it clearer, but I'm talking mostly about presidential politics here. We made gains in 2006 because mid-terms are won and lost almost entirely by the base, and we were fucking fired up. Bush also had a horrible 2005 with Katrina, Schiavo, and civil war in Iraq, which disheartened many Republicans. If we had not gained seats in 2006, it would've been amazing.

[LooseWilly]

33. I think I agree...

I think that a lot of the "undecideds" sit elections out because they see so many pandering to "everyone" (which seems to be the mythical "center" in so many lines of thought)... and the pandering is so obviously bullshit.

I have a theory that more liberals could get elected, if they were willing to stick to & fight for "liberal" policies. Charisma helps. Being willing to craft pragmatic solutions that help those who need some help dealing with the corporate thumb under which they live might actually generate some excitement. A politician willing to call the bullshit notions that any sort of populist policy will cause all business and commerce to flee the country... lead to economic collapse, etc. ... might just prove the whole Republican line of rhetoric to be bullshit, and might engender a generation of loyal voters.

It's obviously a theory that it would take some real courage to try out... and courage isn't a common trait in politicians. It seems to me to be worth a try... but even here at DU there seem to be a slew of people who would argue and resist the idea of any change or chance taking.

Changelessness requires no belief or hope... ironically.

Sadly, all too often politics in this country seems to take on the same dynamics as a high school football game... with people rooting for "their team" without bothering to try to understand the game, let alone the underlying strategies of the plays the coaches are calling.

[FatDave]

36. Courage and chance taking.

You're right about those things, but damn, why don't we just try running a liberal (one who isn't a dead fish) just once? We've tried everything else, and it's pretty easy to make the case that even if liberalism isn't always the right answer, it's the right answer now.

[Political Heretic]

34. When the Democratic Party represents me and my poor, working class friends, then they can have my $$

But I'm not going to continue giving $$ that I barely have to a party that actively prioritizes the needs of the financial elite and the super privileged over the needs of the poor. And I regret the money I gave and now feel I wasted in the last election.

[d_b]

35. sounds good.

and a whiskey sounds better.

[shadesofgray]

37. K&R. I stopped giving awhile ago.

[bvar22]

39. The "Centrists" don't care about my few dollars.

They are funded by Wall Street and the Health Insurance Industry.


FWIW, I stopped donating to the DSCC and the DCCC in 2004.
After Dr Dean was banished, I've stopped ALL donations to the DNC.
I now only send money directly to Progressives with a proven track record, or local progressive candidates.

I WILL be sending a donation to ANY Democrat (hopefully a progressive) challenging Blue Dog leader Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana).
I encourage everyone to do the same.



"I don’t represent the big oil companies. I don’t represent the big pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what?
They already have great representation in Washington.
It’s the rest of the people that need it.”
---Paul Wellstone’s Last Commercial

[Vidar]

40. Recommended.