Destroying The Party To Save It
I applaud Markos for being patient enough to stand by the Democratic party and encourage people to not drop out of the political process, but when is enough enough? At what point do you say “screw it” and come to the conclusion that the people in Washington don’t represent your core values? You know the Democratic party is in a sad state of affairs when a post encouraging people to stick by the party ends like this :
Democrats think “looking strong” means bombing Iraq or Iran, when “looking strong” really means standing for something because you believe in it, even if you might not think it’s the smartest political play. Whimpering every time Rove says “boo!” is not strength. Caving in to the administration is not strength. Surrendering what should be core beliefs because of political expediency is not strength.Update: Rereading this, I don’t think I was clear on this point — please do put pressure on Democrats to do the right thing. On torture or whatever. Please get angry when they fail us and core American values.
Why should we continue to put pressure on politicians to do something that would come as second nature to any decent person? What does it say about our leaders if we have to beg them to oppose torture? If the Democrats aren’t willing to risk their careers for a higher principle like preserving the right of habeas corpus or protecting the separation of powers, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that they don’t feel strongly about these issues and probably shouldn’t be representing us?
I’m not ready to abandon the Democratic party, but I’m ready to make my protests against their lack of action mean something. Over the weekend, I wrote a pair of posts at the Huffington Post that pissed a lot of people off for saying, essentially, “Don’t Vote Democrat”. In it, I advocated voting against every incumbent, regardless of party, under the theory that starting Congress over with a blank slate would be better than the corporate whores and lapdogs that we’ve got now. Although it was more of an intellectual exercise designed to provoke discussion, my essential point was this :
If you’re willing to vote Democratic every election no matter what’s going on because they’re always better than the Republicans, then you’re just helping reinforce the cowardice that’s plagued the party for well over a decade now.
The biggest flaw in the blogosphere’s enthusiasm for the prospect of the Democrats taking over the House and/or Senate is the notion that the Democrats are suddenly going to grow a spine. It’s not gonna happen. Do you really think they’ll view as a mandate their change from a slight minority party to a slight majority party the way the GOP has arrogantly asserted with their recent electoral wins? Investigations, subpoena power, etc. sound awesome, but we’re talking about the same people who we have to beg to oppose torture.
It’s not enough for Democratic politicians to do the right thing after being hounded. We deserve leaders who have well-tuned moral compasses and don’t need to be reminded the difference between right and wrong. But these cozy, beltway incumbents are the ones who are going to be running the committees, who will be practically unstoppable in future primaries, and whose fetishes for centrism will have them all waiting in line just for the privilege of getting to co-sponsor draconian legislation with St. McCain. Crashing the gates is a great goal, but at a certain point you might need to just tear down the whole damn fence and build a new one.
Which is not to discount the hard work of the netroots. Ned Lamont, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb (among many, many others) are doing great work to shake up the status quo and deserve all the support you can give them, but I’m not willing to do thing to support the politically and morally tone-deaf Democratic incumbents who take the support of their base for granted. If you’re not willing to stand for something as basic as human rights, then why should we stand for you? Is it really worth all this effort to replace people who support torture with people who tolerate torture? Either way we’re stuck with a lawless President who gets to do anything he wants.
Are you willing to risk losing another election in order to rid the Democratic party of cowards and fools? Hell, I’m a Democrat. At this point, I’m used to going to bed on election night depressed. So I don’t take it for granted that the Democratic party is going to win in November. Unlike many of my friends on the left, I’m not afraid of losing this election. My big fear this election season isn’t that the Republicans keep control of the House and Senate, but that the Democrats win and do nothing.
17 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I vote for the Democrats to keep the Republicans from doing something even worse, and I apply pressure where I can to change the voting system so third parties have a chance. Ranked-choice voting and proportional representation are the only way I can see out of this mess.
Comment by Max Kaehn — September 27, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
I came here because I considered the Repugnicons the real threat to the country I had spent the prior 20 years defending. I had voted for a third party in 2K; the first time voting anything but repugnicon. And when the war in Iraq started I felt that I alone felt things had gone woefully wrong. I determined to vote Dem for the first time to do my part defending the country with my vote. That is about the same time I discovered BLOGs and KOS, TPM and Markos have been a part of my daily reading since. For as long as I can remember you have been as well.
I too feel great frustration as I did in ‘04 and feel like taking a dive from this party. To be sure, failure to stand against torture will certainly make me leave.
That having been said, your post left me with mixed feelings and I hope someone posts a clear argument to stay in the fight. For now I think yours is poorly timed but well felt. I hope I’m wrong… I hope someone reads this and stops to think, I’m just not holding my breath.
Comment by Fr33d0m — September 27, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. ANY DEMOCRAT WHO DOES NOT VOTE AGAINST THE TORTURE BILL WILL NOT RECEIVE MY SUPPORT.
I SUGGEST THAT WE FINANCIALLY SUPPORT ONLY THOSE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTE AGAINST THE BILL AND GIVE NOTHING TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ITSELF.
Comment by joe reichmann — September 27, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Vote against all incumbents? So you’d vote for Katherine Harris in Florida?
Comment by Sam Baker — September 27, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
I read your 2 posts on Huffpo and many of the comments. I’m in agreement with you. I also saw Markos post on Daily Kos today. I was esp interested because I also am finding it hard to stomach the thought of pulling a democratic lever this year, although I’m expecting to hold my nose and do it…which is what they expect me to do. After all, there’s no need to cater to the left wing when they have us by default (your point), so I think the strategy is to try to appeal to centrists / undecideds, which I suspect means mostly disaffected conservatives. It may be good strategy. This election will be a consensus on Republicans, whose policies have effectively divided us and created strong feelings, and votes will be cast for and against them. It doesn’t matter what Democrats stand for- they’re not Republicans. They’re statuary, inoffensive as mannequins. They aspire to win by default.
I think they will. It will be interesting to see how they react to having actual power. Your concern that they win and do nothing is really a disheartening thought. I’m hoping the John Conyers influence will prevail and serious investigations begin as a prelude to impeachment. I’m not worried about Bush’s successor- even Cheney would be no worse- and the impeachment will have left the party discredited and ineffectual.
The detainee issues are probably the most revolting development for me personally since the decision to invade Iraq. I felt literally sick this morning when I read that Senate Republicans had ironed out plans to pass that bill before adjourning later this week, including an arrangement with dems to limit the time spent in debate. In another article I read that at the only hearing scheduled on the habeas corpus provision, of 3 attendees, Sen. Pat Leahy was the only Democrat present. I really can’t find the language to fully express the disgust and revulsion I feel.
Two thoughts:
1) one commenter at Huffpo who is active at grass roots level of the Dem party made the point that change doesn’t start at the top, it starts at the bottom, and there are people coming up the ranks who will share our viewpoint, as I think most Democrats at the grass roots level do. I think that’s a more detailed explanation of the point Kos was later making, too, to hang in and work for change. Hopefully at the next primary, incumbents will face challengers who call them out on support for the war, the Patriot Act, the Detainee Bill, etc., and we’ll get a little ideological cleansing action, a la Ned Lamonte. Will it happen? I don’t honestly know. Lamont was the exception in this past primary, not the rule.
2)In two years, it will make a difference who the candidate for president is. I hope it’s Gore. He’s been as opposed, as forceful, and as early in stating his opposition to the policies of the Bush Administration as anyone anywhere. He came out two-fisted when it was considered radical to oppose the insanity that had become the prevailing wisdom. I feel admiration and kinship to him on that basis alone, and think it’s important to get someone like that back in front of both the party and the country. If not Gore, at least not someone wimpy. I can tell you I won’t be voting for anyone who has supported any flag-burning amendments.
Finally, if I can recycle a portion from a comment I left elsewhere re impeachment, that kind of dovetails with your argument:
There are some things you do without regard to consequences, just because it’s the right thing, the principled thing to do. If you don’t have the courage of your convictions- if you can’t forcefully oppose the policies and tactics of this administration- then why do you think the party merits support? Why should anyone support the party of timidity, of risk-aversion, of polling, focus groups, effete strategists, and tepid sloganeering? “Together, we can do better.” There’s a natural limit to how well invertebrates can do.
There’s a good case to be made for a boycott, and I’d been considering whether to vote or not. I expect I will. Maybe not again if change isn’t forthcoming. It’s like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or cutting off your nose for spite. I’m not quite there yet.
Comment by ray black — September 28, 2006 @ 1:50 am
I’m in agreement with you. I can’t pull a lever for someone who condones torture, no matter their stance on health care, abortion, gay rights or other items on which I feel strongly.
I posted on my own blog on this, and I hope others will share their thoughts, on blogs, in comments and in public forums on this important subject.
Unless/until the candidates realize how many of us they are offending/losing, they’ll continue to fear showing independence from Bush while Rove keeps shouting “WAR!”, “TERROR!”, “Nukes!” etc..
Jack Ballinger
Comment by Jack Ballinger — September 28, 2006 @ 5:34 am
Well said.
I’d like to veer slightly off-topic and take a moment to address a subject that, judging by posts and comments I’ve seen in just the last couple weeks on other blogs, still causes Democrats to gnash their teeth - Nader in 2000.
Though I didn’t vote for him, I’ve been amazed at how Dems still latch on to his candidacy as the most important factor causing the election to be close enough for Bush to steal.
First of all, there’s absolutely no reason to assume that anyone who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t run. It’s just as, if not more, likely that they wouldn’t have voted at all, seeing Bush and Gore as the right and left wings of the Big Business party.
But even more importantly, have the Democrats behaved these last six years like someone who was stabbed in the back and robbed of what was rightfully theirs? Wouldn’t you expect someone like that to be furious and determined to take back what was stolen from them? Did that evil Nader steal the Democrats’ heart as well; has he been preventing them from fighting back all this time? Don’t think so. There’s something much more malignant underneath all this cowardice and weakness from the Democrats.
(And don’t give me a bunch of “Oh, but if Gore had won, he would have thwarted the attack, or if we had been attacked, the reaction would have been carried out competently, etc.” If, if, if. You have no way of knowing that for certain, and if you’re going to indulge in historical fantasy, at least give me a story that’s a little more interesting, like what would have happened if the American Indians had invaded Europe with superior weapons and more lethal germs.)
Comment by david — September 28, 2006 @ 5:57 am
Ashcroft. Bush. Bush. Harris. Supreme Court. Cheney.
Had enough yet?
Comment by patrick — September 28, 2006 @ 6:17 am
Well said, Greg. Throw the bums out.
Having said that, I’ve argued that the Republicans running Congress are every bit as spineless as the Democrats, if not more. Thanks to congressional “winner take all” rules, the Dems have their hands tied (doesn’t mean they have an excuse for not yelling at the top of their lungs), but the Republicans are running everything, and they keep selling out over and over again giving more power to Bush, giving him everything he wants, abdicating their own power, their own jobs, their own pride, to give him more and more unitary control over the Legislative and Judicial branches.
For the Democrats to be spineless when in a position of zero power is one thing. For the Republicans to be spineless when they have all the power in the world to stand up to Bush when he crosses the line… but instead help him move the line further and further back… that’s cowardice beyond comprehension.
Comment by The Idiot — September 28, 2006 @ 7:38 am
I’ve heard arguments like this, and the ones you’ve made elsewhere Greg, and I’ve got to say: Do you think this is as bad as it can get?! Do you think, for one iota of a second, that the Repugnicans have emasculated the Democrats ALL the way?! ‘Cause if you do, then you haven’t studied history very well - and it’s THIS fact that scares incumbent Democrats MOST.
You don’t change the direction of a “ship” as large as America on a dime, and we won’t change the political direction of this country that fast either - but grabbing the wheel and cranking to the left is a start. Do it too fast, however, and we’ll tear this country apart. And don’t think it couldn’t happen here - that’s a POV that’s as sickening as it is naive. I realize supporting some of the Democratic incumbents — like Ben Nelson in my state — isn’t easy, and is sometimes distasteful. I also know that the Rethuglicans have promised that if they have the power, and there’s too much disruption of THEIR agenda, they’ll punish, for real and hardcore, any “goddamned Democrat” who stood in their way. They could take ALL Democrats off committee chairs, for example. Legally, could they do it? Yes. And they’ve done MOST of that already. But ALL of it? Not yet - and that’s the kind of trump card they’ve been playing against incumbent Dems for quite a while now.
Lamont is a beginning, one that says to politicos everywhere in this country, “If the conditions are right, and the scales are in our favor, we CAN and WILL take the option of putting forth not just a DINO, but a REAL Democrat. Maybe he(or she) will win, maybe they won’t but where we can, we’ll fight.” Fighting battles you have a significantly greater chance of winning first isn’t lazy - it’s good tactical strategy. To do anything else is sheer stupidity. Set up the playing field as best as you can for the major onslaught - which, in the opinions of most folks means 2008. That is what voting Democrat THIS election means. Setting up the playing field so that, when the time comes in 2008, we can put these reich-wing nutjob bugs back under the rocks from which they came — or, if possible, crush them under our collective boots like the turds they are.
So… while, in my heart of hearts, I don’t agree with voting back in every Democratic incumbent in 2006, I agree with the strategy of doing so - because if we lose, and we’ve shown this much opposition to the reich-wingers, they WILL take action against ANYONE who even walks down the street and turns the corner to the left when this election is done. You can COUNT on that. Their only thought, is the same as that of The Emperor from Star Wars, “Wipe them out - ALL of them!” We vote against our own party this time, and there may not BE a party to support next time. This isn’t idle chatter -this is for real. You wanted to know why to vote Democrat this year? Because if you don’t there may not BE a chance to do so next time. So what if we lose this battle for truth and honesty? It isn’t about winning the battle - hell it isn’t even about “winning” the war of ideas. It’s about getting this country to a place where ALL sides can be a legitimate part the debate that guides our country. And standing there waving your holier-than-thou principles in a field in the middle of nowhere is just as effective as a fart in the wind; sure, YOU feel better - but no one else gives a flying rat-fu*k what you’ve just done, and the effect you had on the world doesn’t even measure on ANY scale. So come down from the mountain, and pull the damn lever - and hopefully next time around, you, I, and a crowd of others can be in the field, waving our principles TOGETHER (and if we’re lucky, we’ll have great music too). Enough people together like that CAN change the world. It’s already happened before, and it can happen again. But it starts with working TOGETHER to make change begin.
THAT’S why you should vote Democratic this year.
Comment by Silversmith — September 28, 2006 @ 8:23 am
Nowadays it’s easy to vote with your $$ as well as your vote. Through ActBlue-type pages you can support those candidates financially who do seem to get it, and are not slick, triangulating wussy insiders, and you can still hold your nose and pull a lever in your home district for the lesser of two evils.
IMHO this is exactly the structure Kos and others have helped build, which I optimistically beleive will eventually weed out the sheep-like Democrats who rightly piss you and me off for rolling over whenever Rove says “boo!”
Go donate now, and stop all this lame “not gonna play” stuff. If not us, who?
Comment by John I — September 28, 2006 @ 8:43 am
Lamont and Webb are moderate to conservative types. Just because they aren’t incumbents doesn’t mean they will change much.
On the other hand, people like Brown in Ohio will make a read difference, and people like Slaughter are actually standing up now.
You’re buying into the “incumbents are eeeeevil” myth just as much as the DC types you decry buy into the “centrists are cooooool” myth.
Comment by Dan — September 28, 2006 @ 9:13 am
How can anyone say Gore is an alternative? Do you have any idea how wealthy he and his family are from oil? The stratification in this country is not Dem/Repub. It is economic. If we continue to support those in the money/power structure, we will continue down the same course we are on.
The Democrats at least have the wherewithall to examine thier behavior, but the system itself is broken. The money interests control the media, which in turn controls us.
The most important short term issue is somehow getting an impartial media back. As the blogosphere has proven on the small scale, media matters. As long as the media is responsible only to the bottom line, true change will not occur.
Comment by T4Toby — September 28, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
T4Toby, I’d like to introduce you to President FDR - I agree that wealth is the real dividing line and that class matters, but Just because someone isn’t from the wrong side of the tracks doesn’t mean they can’t fight along with it.
Comment by Ross — September 28, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
Jim Webb is disgusting. Less disgusting than George Allen, I guess, if you want to create a hierarchy of disgusting… but… then… the suggestion that he “deserve[s] all the support you can give [him]” would be somewhere on that same pyramid of grossness. :/
Comment by Zach — September 29, 2006 @ 8:07 am
ok, here’s what I was going to say to this:
I disagree. Democrats winning and doing nothing is a valid fear, but now that most (many?) primaries are over, let’s cross that bridge IF we come to it.
but then I realize that this is essentially saying, “shut up and follow the herd” and that’s no good either. Perhaps one way to go about avoiding the doing-nothing disaster could be lifting up Dems we like. Or perhaps looking at good things Dems are doing and the reactions of other Dems to those good things.
I guess my intuition just tells me that lifting up the positive is more productive than simply exposing the negative.
:)
Comment by Liz Schwartz — September 29, 2006 @ 8:14 am
The only upside to having Democrats in office is that you get to push them to the left, rather than push them to the near right; needless to say, that isn’t much of a plus.
Comment by Joe — October 2, 2006 @ 5:56 pm