Timothy Gatto posted a column at SmirkingChimp.com Thursday that really, I think, illustrates the fraudulence of this year’s presidential election. No matter who wins, we’ll be stuck with a president who shall do little or nothing to alter the terrible course our once-great nation has been dragged on these last seven years. It really is like being given a choice between Coca Cola and Pepsi; no matter how you vote, you’re still casting your ballot for empty calories and other toxic wastes that serve only to slowly destroy the body.
I think it’s time to face facts: the Democratic Party as we knew it is no more. It has ceased to be. What we have left is a pale imitation of the Republican Party. And 2007 is a perfect example. What Progressives really need to do is bring back the Progressive Party. Read on, and I’ll explain further.
For a little while now I have been doing my own part to accomplish this goal on my discussion forum. But my efforts are neither original or the first to be made. Already some states have revived the Progressive Party, including Washington and Vermont. In the latter state, Progressives have gotten a number of members elected to the legislature, and are now running their own candidate in the gubernatorial election.
What does this mean for Vermont? Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature are forced to work with the Progressives to get anything done. The political power the party has in this capacity is, therefore, significant — and growing.
This did not happen overnight, but it did so with surprising swiftness; the Washington Progressive Party reformed in 2003, according to its web site, with assistance from the Vermont chapter. So all this has taken place within the last five to seven years. Not bad for a revived political party that, nearly a century ago, made history by causing an incumbent Republican president to come in last in a three-way election.
Whatever doubts you might have about the effectiveness of bringing back the Progressive Party, the examples of states such as Washington and Vermont should ease or eliminate them. Allow me to paint a portrait in your mind. It’s not very likely to happen, but let your imagination loose for a bit as I describe this scenario:
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, made up of seventy-one House members and one senator (Vermont’s Bernie Sanders). Frustrated with the refusal of Democratic leaders to end the occupation of Iraq, impeach the Bush-Cheney regime, and pass progressive legislation. Imagine if, some day soon, each and every member were to leave the Democratic Party and register under a newly revived Progressive Party. Like I said, not likely, but suspend your disbelief for a few minutes and bear with me. Imagine the sheer power Progressives would have, especially over Democrats.
“We’ll caucus with you, so you keep control of the House,” they say to the leadership. “But here are the things you must do for that to happen.” And then the Progressives would trot out their list of demands. If the Democrats balk, the Progressives caucus with no one, and control reverts to the GOP. Do you think the spineless, conniving Democratic leaders would dare let that nightmare come to pass? I don’t. No, they’d fall all over each other to please the Progressives, desperate to retain their tenuous hold on power in the Legislature.
This is, of course, wishful thinking on my part. But consider the headway already made in just a handful of states by the Progressive Party. Yes, it would take years to achieve results on a national level. We’d have to start locally, of course, work our way up to county and state-level offices. And then, once each state in the Union has enough of a party presence, run national-level candidates.
This is already happening. It has already achieved tangible results. It is now time for Progressives in every state to ask themselves if it’s worth the heartbreak, frustration, and continuous disappointment by sticking with the Democratic Party. If you’re interested in bringing back a political party to your state that can give real political power to Progressives, you could do a lot worse than to start exploring ways to revive the party that bears our name. If you’d like to give it a try, you may either register an account at my forum or, better yet, establish contacts with the Vermont and Washington state parties to learn how you can bring it to your community.
If we’re to eradicate movement conservatism once and for all, we need to create a strong, energized Progressive movement to counter it. It’s worth trying.
The only way to build a progressive party is to do it inside the Democratic party. Anything else just splits the vote on the left, causing further damage.
A lot of Kucinich’s supporters understand that, and have been getting involved in state democratic organizations across the country. It’s a lot easy to take over the big cheese than to compete with the big cheese.
I’ve been saying this for quite some time. (In fact I got into arguments with those who think a third party is the only way to change the system. I’m sure you were here for some of those.) Being a storyteller, I know the real message of the story of the Trojan horse — it’s a lot easier to take over something from the inside than it is to try to break down the defenses from the outside. That, plus the Democratic party has tradition, it has name recognition (granted, not all of it good at times) and it has structure. The structure was weak in many places, but one of the exciting things about Obama’s campaign is that he’s kickstarting the Democratic organization in places where, literally, there hasn’t been a Democratic organization of any kind in 30 years.
Add to that the idea that a lot of people getting into politics to support Obama are young, idealistic and haven’t had the idea that you can change the system beaten out of them like people my age by and large have. They think they can change the world, and I hope they succeed. It’ll be exciting to watch. As diane101 says, won’t that be something!
I’m in as a precinct committeeman and local office holder. Soon I’ll be choosing a vice committeeman. I have in mind a very left-leaning, enthusiastic law student who interned at our county attorney’s office last summer. I will probably never see the end results, but I haven’t given up on planting trees, either. Start locally, start now!
That’s the spirit, Indianadem!!
Good on ya. I wish we had a couple dozen thousand more just like you.
I agree, Omir.
That’s why I’m not surprised to see Ed J recommending these diaries. I don’t know Hens Teeth.
It’s quite obvious to me that those who support a third party are either dangerously naive or out to subvert the progressive wing of the Democratic party. And I can think of a lot of people who have reason to fear that.
the recommendation police?
Obama is a lot closer to the Lieberman Wing than he is to the progressive wing.
And, by the way, did you see that “Reclaiming History” has been nominated for an Edgar Award in the “true crime” category?
Awards like that are meaningless. Posner nominated his own book for a Pulitzer too. Wisely, the committee rejected it. But ignorant people – and let’s face it – how many people have spent 15 years or more researching this case, like those who know – not think, but know, there was a conspiracy – are on any of those award panels?
Are you so naive you really don’t understand how the world works yet? That those who want power control awards to control the debate, to elevate those books that further their agenda, and attack with book reviews those that don’t?
I’d almost believe you’re that naive and not a spook. But then there’s your rec of this diary.
And in the interests of truth – I speak in hyperbole above.
Posner claims his book was nominated for Pulitzer. But the Pulitzer committee has stated they will never confirm or deny any nomination. So the only way Posner could know would be if he nominated it himself.
Of course, it’s also possible, it was never nominated, and he just made that up, knowing there was no way to prove otherwise due to the committee’s refusal to confirm or deny.
No one in their right mind would nominate Bugliosi’s amateurish screed for ANY award, if they had actually read it.
And this is your chance to prove me wrong.
You claim to have an interest in the Kennedy assassination by virtue of claiming to have read, cover to cover a book that runs over 2000 pages when you add in the footnotes.
So do me a favor. Prove you’re not a spook. Read all the many less pages of articles at this site, and then we’ll discuss:
http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/
I know you won’t.
didn’t I ask you nicely not to accuse people of working for the CIA when you have no proof?
Not outright. If that’s your request, I’ll try to abide by that.
a ha ha ha ha ha!
I’m a spook for recommending a diary on a second tier, middle of the road, democratic political blog?!
Watchit’ folks cuz heeza furily dangerous man!
BOO! :o)
I never accused you of being a spook. You didn’t claim to have read Bugliosi’s awful book and found it definitive.
Do you ever read the stuff you write?
Your comment’s title says so much there’s no point in going past that.
Awful lot of baseless assumptions for someone who is a “guerrilla informationist, dedicated to telling the truth about REAL history”
Maybe I just like encouraging an interesting discussion. š
Sorry, but that’s been tried before, trying to take back the Democratic Party from within. It hasn’t worked. Obama’s got you so fooled, and you don’t even realize it. His record in politics is much closer to the DLC-LIEberman wing of the party than it is to the base. Take his gutting of health care reform in the Illinois legislature, for example. Rather than even try to fight for true change, he instead amended a proposed bill to expand health care so that expansion became a mere policy goal instead of reality. Since becoming a U.S. senator, there are so many instances of Obama voting with the GOP that it boggles the mind how anyone could be fooled into thinking he’s even remotely progressive.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
That’s Obama’s GovTrack.us page. Make good use of it.