Yesterday sbj started a great conversation in this diary From a Political Novice; A Question about grass roots activism.
There lots of great responses and I agree with sbj that the conversation needs to be continued. Since the diary is slipping away fast I thought I’d bring the questions to a new diary. Maybe each of us can keep this conversation going in related diaries. I’m excerpting the key part here from the earlier diary.
In the current political climate, it seems indisputable that for those of us who regard the Bush regime in toto as the biggest threat to our country, to our way of life, and to the world at large that’s ever come down the pike, we generally agree that we need to get these lunatics out of office and reclaim control of our own government. I think it’s fair to say that we agree in general that if we can somehow achieve Democratic Party electoral majorities in the House and/or the Senate that our chances of restoring the mechanisms of democracy and strengthening our constitutional liberties and protections are greatly improved. Similarly, I think we (on the “left”) generally perceive the Democratic Party in it’s current state as an institution that is failing us; one that doesn’t stand up for us often enough or with sufficient enthusiasm to have any meaningful effect.
But where we disagree, where we have, in my opinion a huge, (and widening) problem, is in what we think we need to do in order to achieve the aims of regaining control of the government and getting the BushCo maniacs out.
There are many who argue that we need to elect Democrats, plain and simple, in order to change the numerical calculus in congress, if we are to have a hope of restoring government by the people and for the people. And those who argue this point support the notion that even if you have to vote for a Dem that doesn’t necessarily support what you yourself believe in, it’s still the smart thing to vote for him if doing so will unseat a Repub. In short, removing the “R” from that congressional seat and replacing it with a “D” is a first priority and should generally trump every other consideration.
There is another point of view which has finally reached prominence, (especially here in the free-thinking blogosphere, and especially in the wake of recent political maneuvers nand propagandizing by the DLC and by the poor voting choices made by prominent Dems), which argues that, in the end, if we choose to vote for the “go along to get along” Dems who too often vote their support for the Repub agenda, that ultimately such a strategy is a “lose-lose” one because either the Repub beats the “Repub-lite” Dem anyway, and, more importantly, because even in those rare cases where the Dem might win, the fact that his win betrays the principles we believe the party should stand for means the victory is hollow, virtually worthless. And if we add to this the idea that a series of such “victories through capitulation to the rightwing” only rewards, and thus encourages), the party’s movement toward the “right”, then the damage done is multiplied exponentially.
There seemed to be a lot of agreement that there is a time and a place for both voting for “the party” particularly where the lesser of two evils was based in red states.
The premise that I would like to look at in this part of the conversation is where we, the hard core blue zones, have capitulated because we were complacent.
My direction of talking points:
– I live in the SF area and we vote high blue all the time. My county votes 67-70% blue almost always.
– We have elected Diane Feinstein repeatedly and yet we have to pressure her to vote for core values such as pro-choice.
– John Kerry is from an high blue population, yet during the 2004 campaign was pretty weak in how he spoke out for core values.
– Going into the 2006 mid-terms should we in the high blue zones agree with the Democratic Party to put in a weak moderate for congress just because they are registered as Dems?
Or should we support a more agressive candidate in the primaries?
– – – –
Right now I’m not addressing the issues of lesser of two evils in the red areas. I’m working up a diary on the grass roots efforts of Take Back Red California. I’m part of group that is supporting ‘the party’ in these predominantly red areas while we build a farm team.
A great conversation was started and I agree with sbj that it needs to be continued.
For those that have not read that diary – it is important to read that diary and comment thread before getting intense into this conversation. There is a critical background in the ideas there.
Thanks
sbj’s diary and its comments before saying anything here, and that won’t be til this evening (maybe), so I’ll be interested to see what comments show up in here.
Although I didn’t participate in those ‘where do we go?’ diaries, I was too frustrated at the time to contribute anything even remotely worthwhile… I think this is a critical issue and one that needs to be discussed in depth and constantly.
I think we need to quit painting the political world with that huge brush, and remember that the last election was lost by 3% – of those voting. (For a clear perspective you really need to look at the color map). Self-described “progressives/dems” for five years (at least) have retained a popular majority, but an electoral minority. And given the polls of late, that 3% + has shifted to “our” side.
So who and/or what institutions are we really fighting against here? “Republicans”? No. See, we’re not fighting against, we are fighting for. Start there. And with the notion that we believe our approach to governance will realize the promise of democracy for our children’s children’s children. Always look forward, never look back.
Another rule: stay the hell away from labels or colors. My relatives who voted for Bush do not characterize themselves as “Red”, nor are their ideas of America much different than mine. And don’t call me “Blue” unless it’s preceded by “Red, White, and”. We didn’t polarize this country. For that we have to thank the experts, pundits, consultants, and media-savvy idiot savants – from both parties – who created and drove that wedge.
I prefer to work to “Deliver the Promise” of freedom contained in our Constitution. That means being secure in our homes, free from government intrustion; transparent and accurate elections; freedom from need for the least among us; fairness in the workplace; and fairness in our tax system (short list). What makes anyone think “Red” voters don’t support those few basic concepts?
Just sayin. Are we working for the good of 280 million people, or just “democrats”? Words count. Use them wisely.
Agreed….we need to focus on what we are fighting for and how to get there.
Can we come up with a term here in the conversation diaries as to what we want to call the separation?
I hate the red / blue designations as much as anyone else. It just seems that we need to find a way to identify target areas for use of resources and areas to get those resources from.
Rather than fighting over the party ideals, here’s an idea for these diaries:
democrat = little d = grass roots level, progressives, moderates, etc.: candidates for something
Democrats = proper noun = the party – DLC, DSCC, DNC, etc. status quo
I know it’s a hair splitting on grammar or spelling but if we are going to do a third party within the existing one, let’s take the name back.
I agree with eschewing the labels for the most part. Defining ourselves and others according to the arbitrary frameworks devised by others usually telegraphs a lack of inner clarity, not to mention playing directly into the hands of the opposition who devised those arbitrary characterizations for strategic interests of their own.
I would say though that we have to be very careful not to over-engineer the message, and unfortunately, when times are tough, the tendency is often to do more engineering, not less.
To my way of thinking, if we could somehow vanish all the political consultants operating on individual Dems and on the party apparatus in general, we’d be light years ahead of where we are now instantly without having to do anything.
The calculus of ambition almost always crowds out principled action, and nowhere is this more true than in the political arena. But for me, even though this is true, even though I am embarrased at the shallowness and self-absorption demonstrated by so many of our elected officials, even when I cringe more often than not when they prance up to the microphones to perform, I still believe that it’s possible that we can impress upon them the idea that if they don’t get on the stick and start doing the right thing that we’ll dump them. And, in a perfect world, if we could remove the consultants from the scene, getting our message through to them would be much easier. And maybe, just maybe, our elected officials themselves would learn how to speak their own words again.
When “We the People” can finally get our officials to listen to us more than to their paid advisors, then progress will be made. My hope is that by expanding these kinds ofdiscussions we’ll discover the methods and the energirs to do exactly that.
I think that they are backed into a corner by an honest message coming from several directions, most politicians and their consultants would adjust accordingly.
I think it’s beyond the time of asking them nicely to do their job. It’s time to organize these messages from the grassroots and take them as far as possible. This can be done with or without the present officeholders as they choose whether or not to support the needs of the people.
Maybe we’re looking at this from the wrong side of the one-way glass. Seems to me we’re involved in a loosely-affiliated movement, external to any political party. Meaning: the way to approach this is to use the speed and agility of the ‘net to reach consensus on that elusive set of principles. Propagate those principles across the blogosphere as a sort of declaration of independence (lower case), coupled with a request to sign.
External, party-neutral, nation-wide.
Seems to me we’re involved in a loosely-affiliated movement, external to any political party. Meaning: the way to approach this is to use the speed and agility of the ‘net to reach consensus on that elusive set of principles. Propagate those principles across the blogosphere as a sort of declaration of independence (lower case), coupled with a request to sign.
This has been my assessment of the best way to maximize the potential of the energy generated by concerned citizens.
It doesn’t even have to be complete agreement as long as the variety of alliances are based on mutual respect for each other’s beliefs. This requires setting aside some differences to achieve greater common goals but everyone can benefit from their efforts without exploitation or selling out. Some measure might require compromise but most of what we’re facing is crucial to all of us. For the most part it’s focusing on the positive shared goals instead of focusing on what keeps us apart from each other.
Exactly. I think we’re all in “substantial agreement” here. Searching for a mechanism to put reality to concept, I can only point to ActBlue. Misconstrued as only a funding mechanism, the network may be built there. Take a look if and when you have time.
This seems to be the prevailing conversation across the boards of liberal blogtopia. Over the past few days I’ve spent most of my time reading the various points of view on this. So far I think everyone’s made a good case for their arguments on both sides of the issue.
Personally, I would like to see a consensus reached (at least in principle) in order that we could move ahead. As one who has an unwavering belief that Internet activism (and activism as a whole) will become key to the future of politics, and more importantly political change, I feel that the time is now to start organizing and harnessing this power.
We need to face one fact first before we can look to the future. This whole debate, although simmering for quite some time, came to a boil with Alito. But we must accept that we (and I speak here as the “collective” we, not individuals) dropped the ball early in the game, only to complain in the end that we lost. Although many were committed to the cause of stopping Alito early on, the vast majority of the blogosphere/internet (including some of its most prominent leaders/spokesmen) did not get fully behind the effort until the eleventh hour. This to me speaks volumes about why, as a movement, we will remain ineffectual if we don’t evolve and change our tactics.
I look at the organizing of grassroots movements on the right, and how a small minority has managed to gain control over all political discourse in this country, and contrast that with what has thus far been done on the left. The Dean movement taught us that there is a vast potential for fundraising and information dissemination. (as has Move On and other groups), but we have yet to figure out how to really put that power to practical use. To get people elected the kind of people who support our principles. Here is where the right has been effective … they put “movement conservatives” in power and when they can’t, they still force the centrists to shift right out of fear (Specter, need I say more) WE must do the same with “movement liberals”.
But how?
I think the key here is picking the right battles, picking the right amount of them, and most importantly uniting everyone in a common cause.
If we could get organized enough to put ALL our resources ( time, money, communication and networking skills) behind a cadre of progressive primary candidates we might be able to put enough pressure on the system to accomplish our goals.
This could be important for two reasons . First we would hopefully unseat those who do not support our goals the majority of the time. In other case we would be forcing those who waiver to think twice out of fear of future primary challenges. This is what has driven the right.
But it can only be done when you have been successful and so far we haven’t been. Dean and, Hackett have made for great media, but in the end were not successful. WE need success.
We need leadership on this.
I realize that most of the blogmeisters shirk from this responsibility under the guise that the Internet should be leaderless, a free form of expression where anyone can rise up and take the lead…. But so far this has not happened, and I’m not sure it ever will. We have only months left before the mid-terms and we are still floundering around.
What I would like to see is:
* A general “call-out” from the blog leaders to all progressive candidates who wish to run. An organized campaign to have their voices heard by those of us who can help them. ( I like what I’m seeing with Ciro Rodriguez’ from TX 28 over at dKos)
*The sites should then run polls, have debates and what-not to pick a specific number of candidates that we can support effectively and MASSIVELY
*The slate of candidates would then be decided upon by consensus of all of us. Then promoted across the Internet.
*Specific goals set for fund raising, petition signings, etc.
*In essence we run a third party ticket from within the party.
If we are successful, we then transfer our efforts to the general election, still concentrating on our slate candidates. In those cases where we have not been successful, then and only then do we support the other Dem candidate.
This kind of thing can only be done with some sort of leadership and commitment from those who control the front pages of community blogs or are large single author sites. I realize that the campaign finance laws and such would make this hard,… but if they could provided the “forum” for it to be done, than it would hopefully gain a life of it’s own and become a “movement” rather than an organized campaign. Hopefully down the road the larger “real” political entities like Move On and such would follow our lead.
This to me seems the best of both worlds … an actual movement to change the party, while not abandoning it entirely to allow the Republics to fill the vacuum.
Sorry for the length of this
I really like these three specific items – as action items. In the local arena we can build our grassroots but we need leadership in the netroots. We do pretty well in consensus building once we’ve gotten started. What we are looking for is a way to get started and keep it going.
Perhaps one way to do this in leaderless environment is the way we are starting here. Not short one line comments as is normal in the blogosphere, but serious thoughtful ideas. Your comment is not too long – it is in keeping with the premise of these diaries. We need to keep one of these diaries going as a place to move the conversation forward. We also need to develop a method in the diaries for getting candidate information out to others.
*Supporting candidates – that was where my focus was intended. The major metropolitan areas have more manpower and money than the less populated areas. We need to find a way to tap into these resources and distribute them across the country.
Also having faith in the ability of our candidates to grow into the jobs that we elect them to. Years ago Barbara Boxer was a ‘far left and strident’ county supervisor. She made us all just a little nuts and got a reputation for taking on the Pentagon and their $500 hammers. But we stuck with her….and now she speaks for most of the Democrats that I know.
Locally, the complacency is gone. You mentioned rebuilding from within the party as a third party. This is beginning to happen in the heavily progressive counties now. Thus, the heated conversations with local party people.
Great ideas….let’s expound on the strategies.
The major metropolitan areas have more manpower and money than the less populated areas. We need to find a way to tap into these resources and distribute them across the country.
This is exactly why if we could get this kind of thing going, it might be successful. I live in NY … I would never had known about TX28 if not for Rodriguez’ dKos diary and now I will do whatever I can to support him.
I’m sure there are many other great candidates we could get behind. ( Lamont)
We just need to organize
Because of the blogs a lot of us sent money to Salazar in Colorado, Hackett in Ohio, and other places in 2004 and 2005. We did it to support the party candidates based on the idea that a moderate was better than a republican.
I’d like to see is a way for the blogs, or us a diarists, to keep a continuing list going of candidates that we can send support to this year. We are doing it a grassroots level here in Northern CA for selected congressional and local seats. Soon to be a separate diary. But we don’t want to inundate areas with out of towners. We want to support the local teams.
I think what we are trying to do is a get list of ideas together so that we can, if necessary, band together in a leaderless environment on the blogs.
Your strategies are great – we need to fill in action items as to how to get there.
This is essentially the same issue I was stressing in the first thread. The small groups that concentrate on specific issues are mostly already formed. They just need to be incorporated into a larger body for a louder voice. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it’s more effective to round up all of the ones already rolling along.
We have splinter groups of splinter groups on the far left of progressive ideas here in my county.
How do we get these progressives to work as a single unit without getting stuck on single issues?
A lot of us got pissed when there were front page diaries at DailyKos telling us to stop being single issue focused. More in the way it was said than anything. But there is a point that we need to talk to each other about how each single issue adds to the whole?
These conversation diaries I think are part of that bridge building. I’m a pro-choice voter first and foremost, but if you can show me a moderate that is personally not pro-choice but won’t overturn Roe v Wade, I’ll help. Harry Reid is an example of that.
How do we bridge that gap?
I don’t go over to kos so I’m not familiar with what’s happening there.
The ‘single issue voter’ approach is how the GOP had so many Christians and other religious voters somehow supporting a purely contradictory election platform…it works to get votes by harnessing the power of each vote.
There has to be some compromise in order to achieve common goals. That’s why I prefer the concept of active coalitions to achieve goals. Let the Greens be Green and the Democrats be Democrats while joining forces on the issues that affect both of them.
For instance, mentioning my favorite newbie, Hackett. GOP pushed/favored legislation in Ohio to restrict voting was mentioned here and elsewhere several times but got little to no support. It’s passed and it will hurt the Democrats in future elections. Why did that not become a cause for activism like the Alito fillibuster?
How do we bridge that gap?
I think the best way is to focus on issues rather than candidates in the beginning. No one individual candidate will hold all of vast range of ideals found on the Liberal side. Focusing on the issues will help more people faster and a few victories will build strength. Later, when it’s time to refine the field of candidates the choices will be more genuine for assessing intentions.
The real power is when the candidates work to earn the representation of the people.
Limiting how much we try to accomplish at one time
I think the best way is to focus on issues rather than candidates in the beginning. No one individual candidate will hold all of vast range of ideals found on the Liberal side
I think you’re wrong here. I think we should focus on specific candidates in specific races and try to create the biggest splah we can.
In order to satisfy the vast range of single issue and splinter groups the target should be large enough that all could agree (think Joe Lieberman.)
We also shouldn’t expect to field a slate of 30,or even 20 candidates. Perhaps only 10 or 15 that can gain wide exposure. If we were to concentrate our resources on a few races we could then force those races to become high profile. I think that would then start to shift the paradigm towards a more progressive party.
In doing that, how do we make progress on issues that demand attention now? I don’t see any reason why some multitasking couldn’t be done. I’m assuming that you’re talking about fielding nonincumbent candidates to focus on. If that’s true, those candidates would have little influence or effect until after an election.
I’m talking about making a difference with what we have now and finding the right candidates by basing it on what they can accomplish before the next election.
I’m assuming that you’re talking about fielding nonincumbent candidates to focus on. If that’s true, those candidates would have little influence or effect until after an election.
and
I’m talking about making a difference with what we have now and finding the right candidates by basing it on what they can accomplish before the next election.
I honestly don’t have an answer to that. I’m not sure there is one. We’ve seen how little actual “real world” power we’ve been able to wield, especialy influencing voting behavior of our represenatives.
Perhaps the threat of our backing challengers to those who don’t support us would help to force some of those who waiver from wandering to far off the farm. Here is where I really like the Leiberman/Lamont dynamic. If we were to thow so much support at Lamont to actually threaten to unseat Leiberman it would reverberate throughout the party. He’s an easy target and represents everything wrong with that wing of the party.
And to actually defeat Leiberman …would be a 10 on the richter scale.
But as you said … for the here and now … I’m not sure how much we can do. I could be very wrong on this though …I just don’t know
I think we can make the best of both worlds merge to make a difference now and also have the candidates ‘seasoned’ for the next election.
One factor we all agree on seems to be the idea that the reform will come from the voter up. To gain the support of so many diverse interests, it’s important to represent them whenever possible. Gathering these forces now, on a regular basis, would build support for future needs, like elections. It would also bring an immediate influence by having a larger bloc of influence on each issue that’s taken as a large group…essentially under the Dem party where incumbents now can make a difference. Forcing the national discussion on these issues will filter out present incumbents by the next election and/or effect the changes that are needed now. It will also allow the newcomers exposure and a chance to prove what they have before throwing any serious weight behind them.
I think this is a great idea and that it would make a big splash to take out some of the worst, like Lieberman.
I’d also like each of us to think about local races where extra money might help. We have some races in the foothills and farm areas of California where the most spent is $20,000 for an entire campaign on both sides. Those congressional seats are held by Republicans currently.
In addition to national efforts local ideas:
Would an extra $1,000 help the local democrat?
Can we each donate 1 or 2 days in our own region (maybe a 3 hour drive each way) to help at local events?
We don’t want to lose focus on the grassroots farm team.
If we could get “on the ground” information about local races that we could easily influence with support (money) from the greater blosophere that would be great.
Perhaps we could start some sort of commitees to expolore the local races in each of their areas.
When you speak of the “smaller” races these could be prime candidates for us to back.
I mentioned elsewhere in the comments of each participating blog/site having a small space dedicated to networking the resources. A good example might be similar to the regional categories here and they could be also be set up for activity by interest, issue, activism alert, offers/needs…
One of the blogospherists greates assets is finding critical information that doesn’t apply to him/her/self but needs to be shared with the people it does affect. This would be another benefit.
If this continues can we frog-hop to the end of the comments?
has always had good coverage of local races and action on them.
The only problem I find with it is, like everything else in blogtopia, theres a lack of focus.
It’s kind of like a buckshot approach, where they fire a wide burst in hopes of hitting something. I
f we could somehow join forces with them whereby they settle in on a few key races, we could concerntrate our effectiveness.
I absolutely agree. I think that is why these diaries are helpful…we are thinking about each step along the way and logistics.
So…here is the question for the multiple blog participants:
Can we pull together a list of names and get information to focus on?
(a) nationally – for key seats either in the Senate – big impact seats.
(b) nationally – for key congressional districts
(c) at the state level – governors
(d) at the state and local level post primaries where they need help to swing state legislatures
I think a lot of us cross post enough it would work.
But are we willing to pose this question on other blogs where we are well known?
of why we need coordination and (some sort of) leadership in the blog/internet world.
http://www.soapblox.net/myleftwing/showDiary.do?diaryId=5758
This just came up at MLW, I didn’t research the candidate out fully, but from the diary he looks good… but most will never hear of this race because we’re limited to small communities that don’t coordinatate together.
There should be some sort of a summit of the blogtopia on this issue.
This is getting back to the strength of what can work. I don’t have all of the details but the plan is based on having a few representatives from each group communicating and essentially a chain of command, for lack of a better term, that works upward. Each participating blog/site/org/ or whatever, should have some small space dedicated for networking the groups’ resources. The entire program can be open to some input so we can take advantage of looking out for each other but generally there should be designated spokes-people to maintain order.
WOW
I am very definitely in the Novice part of this political stuff.
The Republican success did not come from just a small bunch of activated church groups. There was and is some big money moving everything. We have watched one distraction issue after another get people out to vote for candidates that I doubt really care much one way or the other about the distraction issue. What the candidates as elected officials then do is enact legislation that benefits the corporate supporters.
If corporate entities support candidates, is it possible to sway corporations or those who are threatened by large corporations to support progressive Dems?
Sort of corporate wars of a different kind.
The republicans have been able to finance distraction issues. I think your wrong about their base not caring about the issue, on the contrary I think the big money looks for the issue that can rile up enough support (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) THEN puts it’s money behind it. This allows them to take an issue that had limited support and turn it into a Republican consensus position. That’s the whole premise of their “movement conservatives” strategy. For example, lets look at “anti gay marriage”. This was a pretty much “off the radar” issue, only supported by the far right. But those who did support it did so vehemently. The Republicans knew this so they put tons of money behind the campaign, ran candidates that played lip service to it, then it became a major talking point in their “values” campaign.
As to our ability to finacialy counter them, I think we’ve seen that we can raise money. Dean has done a great job at that, plus we have the whole PAC.521,527 thing going for us.
The problem is that thus far that money has not filtered down to the grassroots progressives. ( especially those who might challenge incumbents). Here is where we can help. If we can help these campaigns in their infacncy, when they are most vulnerable, then possibly they can succeed to move on to the next level where the money really is.
I guess my sentence didn’t come across clearly – the base cares very much about the distraction issue – it is the candidate that I doubt cares very much.
My thought on corporate involvement is not exactly just a money issue. Watching one corporation join with another and together swallow other corporations is scary. We have a media now owned by something like 5 corporations. And how many oil corporations now? As they have swallowed and swelled, they have grown ever more powerful.
Is there a way to tap into the corporate world to build on the Buy Blue group?
Let’s do some coordination on a separate diary for the corporate money. If you want to email we can put our heads together on buyblue.org and a diary there. Corporate money and media distraction is a complete series in and of itself.
I’d like to direct the topic to the ideas of listing strategies and whether we as a group think they are viable.
We have several strategies for discussion here already…including
– identifying candidates in the primary,
– identifying sources of money
– identifying sources of manpower
– working at directing money to specific candidates,
– supporting democrat candidates
see comment upthread on little d vs big D democrats
– supporting the Democrat candidate once the primaries are over
– defining what we are ‘for’ instead of against
We want our party back supporting our ideals not the status quo.
I have said this before about Crawford but I feel that it deserves to be said again. I watched BushCo shoot their own footage of the counterprotest and then they provided the film footage free to the networks. Instead of hoping that the press shows up when your candidates are giving fabulous speeches, film them yourselves…….get them to the media outlets if you are able – free of charge and get them up on the net. The media can choose to run it or not run it but if people are running to the net instead the T.V. perhaps they will pay better attention. It is so hard to get good coverage right now of candidates talking their talk about how they going to walk.
Yeah and when the message is truth, it will gain popularity and exposure. I can envision plenty of media exposure if various forces are joined together. There is already a few spots like the Daily Show or Countdown that could become a regular platform.
Changed it a little to ‘our’ press coverage!
Absolutely great idea.
Is it possible that this is where we could support from the DNC?
Howard Dean of all people would be able to understand the need for fair press coverage. If they are proposing a 50 state solution could this be part of it? What about Democracy for America groups across the country?
Could we mobilize enough netroots people to help convert video to net based for streaming video?
There is so much talent, so many great people, so many resources out there that seem to go unnoticed but have been working independently all along. I sincerely see the movement coming from the net/blogosphere and either the major power picking up early by a few or in a big way as it grows.
I believe in individuality but if we could have every group speaking on the standard of integrity for accuracy that Dean brings, it couldn’t be ignored. The main reason the media gets away with shoddy performance is because they can. If we had committees spread out, which we already do of sorts, and confronted each media representation in a large way, the media would change eventually.
SallyCat,
I’m enormously happy that you’ve so deftly picked up this conversation and continued with it, and it’s great that so many more are joining the discussion.
I’ve been out for most of the afternoon andhave just discovered all of this here. I have to eat, and also to read and digest all of what everyone is saying here before commenting further, but I want to say I couldn’t be happier that this whole conversation is going forward, because I think it’s absolutely vital that “we” develop a set of coherent and unified and effective strategies to neutralize the BushCo juggernaut and take back the country.
Hey, thanks for the original diary you did. It was an excellent expression of the situation.
If we can get this coordinated with other sites – perhaps initially My Left Wing and MyDD – can a space be set aside like one of the regions space – for directing candidate discussions and targets?
“Campaign Corner” or something like that for a name?
Just something to think about while we work through where we are going and how to get there. I know we are all on the same page – promoting progressive ideals and candidates and taking back the Democratic party.
Excellent idea! I’ve been wishing for this since BooTrib first started. We have some excellent local candidates here, both at the state lege and US Congress level. I mean, really excellent – true progressives, but more than that. People willing to take political risks, to do the right thing and say, screw ’em if this ends my political career, I’m going down fighting.
The outpouring of support yesterday on dKos for Ciro Rodriguez just stunned me. And it was noticed. Read the San Antonio Express article about it, or see the many dKos diaries and FP stories that made it happen.
I think one place to start would be if we had a place to post descriptions of candidates in our areas that we really can support whole-heartedly and why we do. I realize that not everyone has candidates like this where they live, but some of us do.
I think this would accomplish two things: 1) Inspire everyone to get informed about who’s running where they are. There may be a good candidate or two that they haven’t heard about yet. 2) For those who really don’t have someone they can support where they are – this will give them some ideas for giving whatever support they can to a good candidate somewhere else. If someone in Utah, say, can help us get John Courage elected (from my Congressional district) we’ll all benefit.
(Note – John was chosen to be Russ Feingold’s first “Progressive Patriot” for you Feingold fans.)
A good example of a type of automatic content that could be picked up for a stronger voice is this piece from Sen Feingold posting at Kos
I’ve seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday’s State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on.
…which is also linked at Buzzflash.com as
Russ Feingold Makes a Clean Break from the Pack and Has Joined the Reality-Based World of People Who No Longer Put Up with the Lies and Betrayals of King George. Feingold Breaks Through the Looking Glass of Senatorial Blather and Tells It Like It is.
…and could be picked up without seperate diaries falling off of the page or otherwise missed. If this goes out to every participant site then it’s a standard for exposure and discussion.
There are so many great explorations going on here, so many new ideas germinating and finding resonance with each other that my often times discouraged view is being knocked right out of my consciousness.
As I said yesterday I’m a novice in the mechanics of political activism, but since yesterday, and as a direct result of the responses both to my diary yesterday and SallyCat’s diary here, I have a few thoughts which may be relevant and useful.
One organizational idea that appeals to me is one where we devise some sort of system to calculate the pros and cons of when to support and when to withold support for individual candidates in individual races based on an understanding of the circumstances and likely ramifications of those races. For instance, my Dem Senator here in Florida is Bill Nelson, a conspicuously lackluster and uninspiring guy who votes the wrong way on some big things, (like the bankruptcy bill, the prescription drug bill), is not a powerbroker in the party on any level, seems quite unresponsive to his constituency, and who’s main challenger for his seat is the hapless mannequin Kathryn Harris. For me, his value is as a seat warmer with a “D”label on it. I feel betrayed by Nelson on the core issues and will not vote for him, (and told him so), preferring instead to look for someone else to rise up on the Dem side to replace him eventually. An easy choice for me to make because the liklihood of Harris beating him is pretty low. and easy also because Nelson is a follower, not a leader, and even though having his vote as a Dem vote might be an important pivotal thing occassionally, he usually votes with the herd so his individual value to the Dem/Repub calculus is relatively small.
But as so many here point out, other races have different ramifications and need to be evaluated with different values.
If a victory by anti-abortion rights Casey over the lunatic Santorum meant the Dems would achieve a majority in the Senate, would it be worth it to vote for Casey? This is perhaps the cruelest sort of choice confronting us. And in order to make a strategically effective choice, a best results for the country choice, we might have to consider the broader picture in the sense of things like; “How many other Repubs would we need to defeat in order to achieve that majority and is such an acoomplishment even realistic”? Or; “If we support Casey and he wins and then his subsequent votes wind up selling out womens’ rights right down the river,have we done more harm than good”? (Personally I cannot imagine ever voting for anyone who might vote to erase the right of women to have control of their own bodies, but I can, tragically, see how others might.)
Anyway, could we devise a scorecard of sorts, a set of parameters by which we set rankings in various categories; how important is the person in the seat in question, how much impact might a change in party for that seat make; how strong of a voice do we need in which particular areas in order to effect change, and in which areas can we concede that, in the short term, we’re not going to make much electoral progress. Do we suffer if we lose Dem Joe Lieberman, (or our local candidate), if he is a dud? Can we get Salazar, (or our own locals) to come around before he’s completely capitulated to the right or do we need to start earnestly seeking to replace him with a real Dem now? Can we discover and develop the kind of leverage we need to convince the cowards at the top of the party, (or our own local reps) that if they don’t stop equivocating and instead start standing up for things we believe in openly and proudly, that we will abandon them and search out new blood?
There’s much more flying around in my head but I’ve had a very tricky day and feel like I’m sort of losing coherence as I stream off into more of a ramble than a focus. Perhaps a nap will help.
Not incoherent at all, imo. Great ideas. Not easy to implement – the issues are complex and there are a lot of factors to weigh, as you point out.
But one thing that I think we’re all beginning to get a sense of is that the corporate media is killing us with their simplistic sound bites and pandering to sensationalism to sell ads.
The potential for blogs and such is that we can tackle the more complex tasks. Look at ePluribus Media doing the real, time-consuming digging that so-called “real reporters” can’t be bothered with these days.
Thanks, sbj, for getting this rolling. I hope we can sustain the momentum.
Glad what
I was saying made sense.
I think we have to accept that the corporate media is, for all intents and purposes, an adversary to our efforts. Several people in the thread above talked about developing our own “coverage” of events, packaging our own videos, etc., and presenting them to the media as a way of facilitating them giving more exposure to events we see as important and to our point of view generally. A great idea certainly, but I have to say I suspect that even when presented with a first class, top-quality package ready to plug-and-play in the media machinery, they’re likely to reject such offerings unless first vetted through their editorial content process, and this is where much of the damage they do is created. Not only do they routinely parade the blowhards and their bullshit, but they actively suppress news and info that doesn’t conform to their own specs. So, even if we got great footage of, say, Dick Cheney having sex with a goat, or Karl Rove getting a lap dance, or Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle sharpening their teeth together in some dark cave, our vaunted media would probably refuse to air any of it.
This is why we have the internet, and to my way of thinking, we’d be better served focusing as much of our effort to raise the public consciousness on the net first, and let the MSM come here to get it after they’ve been scooped. This keeps the control out here amongst the people instead of giving it over to the likes of Newscorp, Viacom, Disney, and all the rest. They’ll eventually start to realize that they need us more than we need them, and shameless hacks like Matthews and Russert and the legions of gasbags just like them will see their stars fading fast.
I’m not so naive as to think we’ll be able to develop the power and influence of the internet so quickly and so thoroughly as to shut the MSM hackery down anytime soon, but we are already having an impact in at least affecting the mechancs of news in some circles. The WaPo ombudsman thing, the NYT/Miller stink, and other incidents are showing that the giant fact-checking machine known as the blogosphere makes it harder for lazy flacks and hacks to peddle their daily bullshit without being challenged, and I hope this trend will continue because the media is at the very center of what is most wrong with the country.
One other thing that occurs to me, and which I’ve thought about in different contexts for quite a while now, is how we variously determine the value and importance of “unity” in our efforts. Many people quite correctly point out the phenomenal degree of unity the Repubs manage to develop amongst themselves when they’re defending one of their insane plans and seeking to ram it through congress and impose it on the rest of us, (and the more insane the plan is, the greater their unity seems to be). Certainly such discipline is admirable in many ways, but for me, it’s not always healthy, and certainly doesn’t always bring good results.
Sadly, the two most powerful and most easily applied forces that seem to generate unity amongst people are fear and the weaponization of ignorance. Nothing binds masses of people together more strongly than fear, or deploys their terrified psychic energy on a more united and destructive juggernaut than their own ignorance weaponized by that fear. Even a cursory examination of the dynamics of the Bush regime, if seen through this lens, reveals that fear is the primary driving force behind their entire manipulative agenda. Whether it’s the Tom DeLay-led terrorism in the House, the fear of retaliation by Cheney and his neocons against anyone who steps out of line, fear is the driver for their whole enterprise, and ultimately it is what herds them into line when needed to cast these votes and mouth their support for the catastrophic policies and acts they’ve perpetrated on the cointry and the world.
I say all this by way of cautioning our own compatriots against investing too much in the idea of rigid unity. We are human and we need room to disagree. Often, through disagreement, in an environment where disagreement is welcomed instead of shunned, we are better able to see new ideas that lead to better solutions. So, while there is tremendous power inherent in unity, we need to be unified as much as we can in defining our objectives, but we need to maintain an open forum for discussion that allows us to utilize disagreement when necessary to forge even stronger and more thoughtful solutions for the dilemnas we face.
There’s a lot to discuss in this comment of yours. I actually read it last night, but there was so much there that I couldn’t tackle a reply when it was so late and I was tired.
About the “”media.” I agree – they are, at this point, actively the enemy. As Gooserock points out again and again, our system was not set up to function in the environment created by today’s ubiquitous, consolidated mass media. It is dangerous for many reasons.
Basically, it controls what the majority of citizens “know.” First of all – it limits the amount of information available to the average person – it is the prime driver of the “weaponization of ignorance” that you refer to.
I share an office with a woman who identifies completely with the values that most of us here on the liberal blogs care about. But I am always surprised by what she simply does not know. For example, she had heard nothing of Alito’s “unitary executive” philosophy and the implications for our balance of powers form of government. She claims that she is skeptical of everything she hears in the media and therefore is not vulnerable to the effects of the propaganda machine. I pointed out to her that it’s all very well to take everything she hears with a grain of salt, but she can’t be skeptical of or critically evaluate things that she never hears about in the first place. (Hmmm, good point, she conceded.)
The reasons for the lack of information conveyed to us through the media are a least two-fold. The media organs are money-making vehicles, not public services. This has been true for a long time (think Hearst), but as the media grew in power and reach, for a while back in the 20th century, we had some checks on the tendency to put profits ahead of informing the citizenry. With the demise of the fairness doctrine and laws prohibiting media monopolies, the checks have been lost and the drive to put profits above all else has spiraled out of control – hence we get runaway bride stories that sell ads, but that do nothing to let people know what they need to to effectively participate in having a voice in the direction our country is taking. No way is this type of corporate media going to give us boring “white paper” shows or documentaries. Reasoned discussion has no place in it – talking heads screaming at each other engage viewers by triggering emotional responses, not thoughtful understanding of issues. And that emotional “hook” leads them to tune in again and again – and sells ads.
And, of course, there is the “editorial content process” you refer to. The people making the decisions about what kind of information we get are part of the corporatocracy – the small group of powerful people who have as their first priority enhancing and protecting their wealth and power, and the wealth and power of those who they see as “our kind.”
If there is any hope for us as regards the corporate media, it is to occasionally tap into their need for sensationalism – it’s no accident that the Jeff Gannon story got picked up by them, but not the implications of the “unitary executive” philosophy.
Alternative media? Maybe. I don’t like Air America myself – there’s too much fanning the emotions of outrage and the ads drive me nuts – I can’t listen to or watch any commercial radio or TV anymore. But they are doing better than many thought they would financially, so that indicates a certain hunger for an alternative to Fox and all of their clones.Ted Turner got very rich by realizing that there people wanted “news” at other times of the day than half an hour after work. Steven Jobs lost patience with all of the cluelessness of record companies’ hysteria about internet downloading of music and created iTunes and the iPod, which certainly has worked out well for Apple.
The majority of people in this country are in fact, quite disgusted by “the media” – if some Ted Turner type figures out a way to tap into that, it might take off. Even then, something like an alternative cable news network may be a real alternative only for a short while – look at what has happened to CNN.
For now, the internet is our alternative media, and more and more people are getting their information from it. BUT – I am not optimistic that the current free flow of communication and information we have now on the internet will last much longer. I fear we will look back and see a little blip of a golden age before the corporatocracy manages to restrict our access to it. It is too tempting to them – both as a source of profit and to neutralize the threat it poses. I’m afraid that when you say
you are more optimistic than I am.
I’m not sure there is really any hope at all, some days – fear and weaponized ignorance are powerful forces and I’m not sure they can be fought at this point. Other days, I find a little optimism. If there is any hope, I think it might be in electing people who have the point of view (once common and now totally lost) that the airwaves belong to all of the citizens and that profit-making enterprises must “pay us” for the right to use them by true public service and informational programming, and that monopolies are inherently bad things and the tendency toward ever-more powerful consolidations must be held in check by government regulation. It’s a slim hope even on my good days, but it’s one more reason to want to frog-march the current cabal out.
Anyway – alternative ways to get information and reasoned discussion out there – to fight the ignorance – are essential. I hope there’s a way to do it, but it’s not going to be easy, and it’s never going to be done once and for all – it will be a continual battle. (imo)
(Sheesh – went on way too long again, and I’m not sure I said anything that everybody here doesn’t already know. Got to run do an errand now.)
I think there could be some effective change in parts of the MSM but it would be subtle changes. Instead of talking points or soundbites, even a unified message and attitude of correcting misinformation, like Dean does, would help. This will take some time and can be part of the organizational aspect in having a rapid response ready to correct media inaccuracies.
Instead of ‘framing’ it can be considered ‘defining the discussion’ when it becomes standard that our representation doesn’t allow the discussion/interview to stray from topic. For instance, the issues of terrorism is not the discussion of war in Iraq. When the media tries to blend the two, that needs to be defined. Dean has been great at this.
I would say TDS and Countdown would be fast allies if small pieces of content were offered. The audience is there and would grow with this type of material. I’m not talking about a major format right from the start but little bits as it comes around. Look at the airtime and warm reception something like JibJab was able to get.
The net is really the main media force for us to use.
SallyCat and sbj, I am truly heartened by these diaries. In my opinion, it is imperative that we coordinate the blogosphere voter/donor block in a way that will give us all the best possible local representatives and achieve the goal of regaining the majority in both houses of Congress. I agree that DINO’s should be targeted for replacement, that liberal/progressive candidates should be supported whereever they stand a chance of election. I also think that we must sometimes, where necessary, support moderate and conservative Dems in those districts that have proven to be solidly conservative, like here in Mississippi.
I believe this because I do sincerely believe that DINO’s would not have egregious crap to vote for like the bankruptcy bill, medicare and student loan reductions, etc. if the Dems controlled the agenda.
There is good stuff in the previous comments in this thread, and I identify with and support all of the comments so far.
And by the way – I’ve been looking for a place to put my appreciation for this comment from sbj on the first diary and in reply to this one of yours seems to be a good place for it.
That gets to the heart of this whole discussion, I think.
I agree with you and sbj ABSOLUTELY. 😉
Do you think the Democratic Party (however you want to define that) knows what it stands for?
Do you think the Republican Party (however you want to define that) knows what it stands for?
In the surveys taken by Democracy Corp in the spring of 05, after one of the most observed presidential races in recent history here is what the people said:
Republicans know what they stand for: 79%
Democrats know what they stand for: 49%
If you want to stump an elected Democrat, or one running for office, ask them what they would do if they had the same level of control that the Republicans know enjoy. Ask them where they would be taking this country. Ask them what new frontiers they would be opening up, what ground they would be breaking and what (specifically) they would want to achieve.
If you are not happy with the results, ask the same questions of yourself. If you cannot answer these questions, how do you expect your elected representative to be able to answer them? They “represent” you. If you cannot answer these questions, sit down and come up with your answers then show them to some of your friends and allies. Ask them to do the same.
As long as the Party sees itself as a mere electoral handmaiden of candidates, it will have no direction and if it has no direction it will have no message and no power. It has been a long time since any serious policy discussion was allowed to occur in any official Democratic Party proceeding. (And if you think that the party platform or convention resolutions process is even in the same neighborhood, tell me what they say and tell when was the last time you looked at the platform, talked about the platform, or used the platform for anything at all.)
Strategy is good. Framing is good. But we have to agree on what we want. We have not done that. If we do not do it before next election, if we count on our candidates to do it for us, Democracy Corp will not need to run their survey in the spring of 07 and the Democrats will have squandered a huge opportunity.
Only once the party itself has decided what it stands for, what it wants, can it with any sort of good faith ask its candidates and officials to hew to that line. And by defining ourselves from the citizens up, we engage not only our own party members but the public at large in this conversation, and by doing so show them and our representatives that democracy is not just for election day anymore.
I am somewhat perturbed whenever someone raises this question, as I perceive the results you mentioned above to be the product of a massive deception by the corporate-controlled media. The electorate is constantly bombarded with “Democrats don’t know what they stand for” crap from every direction. The important number here, for me, is that %49 of us DO know what Democrats stand for, even in the face of a massive attack bombarding us with the idea that we don’t know.
Now, the numbers do tell us that we have to overcome the media juggernaut and let more independents and republicans know what we do stand for. That is an entirely different problem than redefining what the party stands for.
I say this even in light of what some DINO’s are doing at the present time. We all know who the DINO’s are, which means that we must, by definition, know who the real Dems are. If we didn’t know what we stood for, how would we know who was voting against what we stand for?
This is also a different problem from enforcing the beliefs among the candidates who claim to be Democrats. It is certainly a problem when a DINO gets support from a state’s party or the national party. This issue is not the same as “Dems don’t know what they stand for”. This is more a problem that the party is controlled in some cases by DINO’s, not that we don’t know that they are DINO’s and that they don’t stand for Dem principles.
This is addressed by my suggestions of organizing around and centering on the issues that need attention right now. Putting names and labels last, drawing the support of as many groups as possible that have already built small individual bases, the candidates have a chance to prove their beliefs. By the time the election is in need of defined candidates, the choices are more sincere for intention.
This way, the more that participate, the greater benefit to everyone involved. This should be about confronting issues first and then letting the right candidates meet the challenge we present to them.
I don’t want to trivialize the importance of the question you pose, but I do think the question itself is based on an asumption without foundation.
Neither the Republican Party or the Democratic Party are entities separate and apart from those who are membersor otherwise identify with them. And as such the parties themselves cannot stand for anything! A semantic point perhapsinone sense, but for me the mportant thing is that we don’t fall into the clever trap of attributing to the party an independent identity separate from our own. We are the party, whether we like it or not. (I used to lament many years ago about how many of us had trouble in our personal lives because we’d fallen into a similar snare when we started to see oursleves together in the context of ,”there’s me, there’s you, and there’s the relationship”, as though the relationship was a third entity we had to deal with as an equal. and lots of unnecesary trouble grew out of that thinking.)
When we externalize the party in this way it makes it easier for many of us to absolve ourselves of the responsibility to stand up for our own beliefs in our own lives as vigorously as we should. And giving the party it’s own face also allows us to conveniently “blame it” for when things go badly.
I don’t want anyone to leave it to the party to stand for something and then join that party because of what “it” stands for. I want the people who share the beliefs and dreams I have to join together and speak to those ideals and principles across a shared platform. If that platform is given a name in order to differentiate it from other platforms, that’s fine, but without us, it is nothing, zero, zip, nada!
Just as it is in spiritual matters, it is the principles and human values that empower the religion that embraces them; it is not the religious affiliation that empowers the principles. and just as the evangelical wingnuts have this essential thing backwards in their own minds, so too do the current leaders of our political parties have this essential calculus completely inverted in their own minds.
In my mind, this is a very important point, one that goes to the very heart of all we need to do.
That, my friend, is exactly my point. If the party defines itself by whatever candidate it has endorsed, it wears the mask of that candidate. If the candidate wins, the party wears that mask for the candidate’s term. If the candidate loses, the party goes to seek another mask.
It is only, will be only be, when we define the party as a reflection of our beliefs that it will regain meaning and power.
I have no doubt that many Democrats know what they believe. But until enough of us believe the same thing and communicate it directly to our fellow citizens, the media will continue to define us as a vague and negative presence in politics.
You have said: “Just as it is in spiritual matters, it is the principles and human values that empower the religion that embraces them; it is not the religious affiliation that empowers the principles. and just as the evangelical wingnuts have this essential thing backwards in their own minds, so too do the current leaders of our political parties have this essential calculus completely inverted in their own minds.
In my mind, this is a very important point, one that goes to the very heart of all we need to do.”
I believe that citizen engagment in the party and the government is our only hope of overcoming the citadel of power and money that has been built by the wealthy elite over the last 20 years. Anything less will not succeed.
We may be having a semantic snag or maybe it’sa “chicken or the egg” type thing, but here’s what I’m saying.
The party doesn’t define itself. We are the party, and those who would represent the party must adopt our principles and beliefs. They serve us, not the other way around. The elected officials serve us, they serve the principles we have defined and which they must adhere to if they want to adopt the mantle of our party’s name.
And the party serves us, not the other way around. This is where it’s all gone so terribly wrong for so long. As long as this part of it is backwards, as long as the pols decide what the party stands for, the party is nothing for us, it becomes a mechanism that serves them at our expense and the system stays rigged and eventuallywe lose everything.
Clinton and Kerry and Al From and all those others who would claim control of the party are crapping on us, on “we the people” every day. It’s for us to tell them what we want them to do, not for them to demand our support out of loyalty to something they’ve hijacked to serve their own selfish ends. The repubs, the rational, common man repubs, have the same problem we do, only more extreme. Their party has been totally hijacked by a band of the worst lunatics ever in our history and the average guy on the street, if he is a Repub, is just as disabled as we are right now as far as getting his party back and doing something constructive with it.
I’m trying to understand exactly what a few points are but a couple of contradictions seem to be present.
Are you saying that the Democrat party should not try to occasionally represent some of these grass roots groups if the party can’t represent all of that groups principles?
No. What I’m saying is that whatever we might want or expect from the party, it is important for us to determine what’s important to us first, and then see if the party or a party reflects those beliefs enough that we’re willing to support it. In other words, I don’t subscribe to the notion that loyalty “to the party” should somehow be more important than “loyalty to my own principles”. That the party , however it is defined, shouldn’t be the “be all and end all” as far as deciding how we evaluate what’s important to us politically or how we vote.
That’s a principle I think would work because the movement should be based primarily without consideration to party status. I think it should be formed with guidelines that favor Democrat affiliation since the foundation is in place but open to evolving naturally.
The bad news is that this is unprecedented and could be a failure. The good news is that this is unprecedented and could be a tremendous turning point in our lives.
A movement to organize citizens that are already active in reclaiming democracy, should have the principle of inclusive representation for as many citizens/interests as possible. As it forms through natural growth, it will help define itself to party affiliation if the citizens’ motives are sincere.
No offense intended of course.
As soon as we try to think of an answer, we see immediately that the interests of the voters are almost always directly opposed to the interests of the rest of the economy and of the primary sources of campaign funding.
So, those who give answers that motivate the voters tend to have little financial ability to compete, and trigger formidable opposition from the economy. Those whose answers pleases the economy lose voters.
Our system was not built for such a world. It was built for an economy that was significantly owned and operated by the voters.
This is not such a problem for the Republicans because their policy is to replace the system with rule by their backers. Many of their voters agree with this goal. Those who don’t are easily handled by the corporate marketing techniques of the economy and military-intelligence communities they represent.
None taken, of course. It is either trivial or not.
The interests of the voter are opposed to the “economy” – only if you define the economy as something belonging to the few as opposed to the many, as something outside the definitions created by men and directed by their policies, that the workers are not part of the economy, only the owners.
The interests of the voter are opposed to the primary sources of campaign funding – maybe, but the biggest increase in campaign funding for the Dems in 04 came in small contributions. Money will not save us if we cannot convince the voters we have something real to offer.
I do not think that your assertion that issues that please the voters must not please the “economy” are necessarily true, either now or as these issues and the economy could be.
If you believe as you say, you might as well just give up now and save the effort and heartache. But if you are right, then speak for the voters and let the heavens fall.
Certainly the Repubs have the tactical advantage. They have the bigger bankroll because they are the ones enabling the looters. they are the majority party and so have a stranglehold on the media because they’re able to threaten these heavily-competitive corporate monoliths with losing acces if they don’ttow the party line. And they’re able to intimidate Dems on all the stuff about being strong and forceful and unambiguous etc.
But even with all of that, there’s no reason why a Dem couldn’t stand up and say something like this;
I bet such a spiel might even gain some traction even if it only got marginal coverage, if it was delivered by someone with even a little bit of name recognition.
Of course maybe I’m dreaming, but I’d certainly like to hear someone talk like this publicly, and I’d certainly want to work towards supporting someone who thought that way.
That would’ve come in handy for someone to say in trying to stop the fiasco of Ohio’s new election laws recently. What they accomplished is disenfranchisement on a grand scale.
wait for the “ideal” candidate. Very few candidates are “drafted” from the real world. And yet there should be some really talented, motivated people that we could call upon that are out there just waiting for somebody to say “tag you are it!” Sebellius has been a very effective dem working with an overwhelming repub state legislature. We need to start working to get her to go national soon. She has had some talented people working on her staff. We could look for her to promote some that are worthy for state offices (yea, even in Kansas Dorothy!) We may have some talented congress people – Tim Ryan comes to mind that we may want to “draft” for governor simply because governorships have traditionally been the best path to the presidency.
But we do not have to stick with dem only. Bernie Sanders has made the point that an independent can be a viable candidate.
We’re in circumstances that neither our Constitutional system nor our politicking and campaigning processes were conceived for.
We have a large population, a majority political movement and the majority of the economy that are all morally dedicated to noncooperation and to destruction of Enlightenment-based democratic governance. And the lack of a lethal enemy empire has freed these forces to take extreme risks with the country that wouldn’t have been imagined during times like the Cold War.
These are not a circumstances that are likely to be addressed adequately with refinements of the methods of more aggreeable and rational times.
This is a fabulous start to what lies ahead of us in 06 and 08. We have brilliant people here and the common thread is to get our country back.
One of the things I have done this year is I decided I did not want to vote blindly for someone just because there is a D behind their name. I live in the 50th CA, you know “Duke” territory. After his scandal we really gained momentum. Francine Busby ran against him last election cycle and with very little in funds and support she almost beat him. I wanted to know where she stood on the issues so I read her website. She had a calendar of events and it seemed they were all house parties asking for $250+ donations. I wrote an email asking about townhall type meetings because I wanted to meet her and hear what she had to say, get a feel for where she stood and what she has to offer. I was told there would be many more public meetings where she would speak and make herself available for q&a.
I continued to monitor the website for those events for three months. Nothing came about. I wrote another email only this time told the campaign that they were ignoring the grassroots. They may be getting vitally important campaign contributions but those people mostly just sign checks and vote. WOuld they be there to support her with boots on the ground? Would they be working the phonebanks? Would they GOTV? Would they bring her name to the blogs? I had pretty much given up in disgust, feeling they just don’t care about the constituents. People that woman actually called me. Not one of her staffers but the candidate herself. She and I talked for over half an hour but the important thing I came away with was that she really listened to what I had to say.
Sorry this is so long but I wanted to add it to the mix here. If we are pursistant enough, especially with “new blood” candidates they are eager to listen. We can do this together. Thanks you for getting this started.
That’s an excellent example of the input and participation returned by a candidate who at least attempts to connect to the greassroots. Thanks for sharing that and for standing your ground in demanding to know that your support was not taken for granted.
Rumi… this is all so new for me. I just know that I can no longer be silent and expect someone else to lead the way. It has to be a cillective if we are to succeed and change the tides.
😉
This is a first for me, too. I don’t even like politics but I do love my kids more than life itself.
And with this comment that I identify with more than any other I’ll jump in and add my uneducated 2 cents.
I’ve read these diaries for three days now with great interest and awe at the depth of knowledge, creativity of ideas and the articulate way they are expressed. A little intimidating for me to be honest as I don’t see myself as someone who can easily explain what I’m trying to get at. I tend to see things in simple shades and seek simple ways to remedy problems. I’m good at taking the caveman approach to problem solving. That’s why I find myself protesting so much I guess because it suits my big lungs and my angry attitude.
First, I’m about as fed up with democrats as I can be. My first instinct is to scrap the whole bunch of them and head off for good to the Greens, of which I’m a registered member, and support them for better or worse. I’m tired of being disappointed and this past week was a tragic failure for our country. Anger doesn’t begin to express how I feel about the democrat’s capitulation. Then I see the reversal on the front page within hours of the vote to hold the guilty accountable. Namely Senators like Cantwell who’s vote was shocking.
On the other hand, I’m not so blinded by disappointment that I don’t understand the gravity of the current situation and how important it is to hold tight to what we do have. But this is a moral struggle for me. How can we continue to support those who continually let us down and hope for anything to change? My instinct tells me that we’ll be better off in the long run if we accept the pain of near future losses now and work to support truly progressive candidates of a third party where we know what they stand for. I doubt there are many here who would disagree idealogically with the Green platform. The question has always been their viability. But how will we ever make them viable if we continue to cave into the fear of more losing? In a perfect world I would wish for a coalition of progressive democrats and Greens but that may be wishfull thinking unless we were open and bold enough to back those of them who championed our values and after consideration of all, decided that that candidate had a reasonable chance of winning a seat. I’m talking locally here where it all must begin anyway.
As for more promonent positions, I would hope that we agree that the Lieberman’s of the party are actively stabbing us in the back and should be aggresively targeted for replacement. There should be no reward for being the first person to stand up and applaude Bush at his SOTU speech.
Anyway, this is all very complicated for this feeble, politicaly challenged mind. I’m encouraged by the conversation going on here and I hope that a concensus can be reached that takes the best of both worlds and finds a way to finally begin to assert some muscle. I’m sick of wimpy dems. I want fighters.
I demand fighters.
Then again there’s the little issue of rigged elections. So all good efforts to elect progressives could likely go up in smoke or into the ether of an unsecure network connection. I don’t think it’s an accident that the numbers of the last three elections, 00, 02, 04 were split fairly evenly with us coming out on the 48% to 49% end of things.
Unless we overwhelm them so thouroughly that it becomes too obvious to steal it then I think we’ll see a repeat.
The election anomalies are one issue that has a base established and needs greater representation. This is an example of an issue that needs to be brought to the national level regardless of the location. It needs to be confronted every way possible. Doing this will give confidence to the voters who felt dropped when the dems didn’t push the election fraud issues before. There are dozens of groups just like this.