I’m a progressive critic of the lackluster (to put it kindly) efforts of the Democrats over the past year in fighting Republican obstruction and carrying through on the programs and promises they campaigned on in 2008 to turn out the vote and obtain the large majorities in Congress they now enjoy. Some “progressives” as disappointed as I have have called for opposition to the Democrats over various legislation, including the inadequate health care reform bills up for consideration. Others have gone so far as to suggest a “boycott” or stay home from the polls approach to the 2010 elections.
Much as I am frustrated with the Democrats in Congress, I believe that approach by progressives would be a terrible mistake. What follows are the reasons why I’ve come to this conclusion.
Here’s my quote of the day, to set the table as it were for the argument I’m going to make. It comes from an Iranian Fundamentalist Cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of Iran’s Guardian Council, which supervises all elections in Iran, among other powers it exercises. The quote comes in response to renewed unrest in Iran, and the declaration by opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, that he does not fear death as a martyr.
During Friday prayer services in the capital city, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a fundamentalist cleric who heads the powerful Guardian Council, called protesters “flagrant examples of corrupt on Earth” and effectively called for them to be executed as “in the early days of the revolution.”
Wouldn’t it be horrible to be governed by fundamentalist religious nuts who consider anyone who opposes them corrupt and who are more than willing to kill those who oppose their vision of of society ruled by God’s law? And you wonder why we on the left here in America (and by left I mean anyone who doesn’t swear allegiance to Sarah Palin) makes such a big deal about the secretive society of politicians and religious leaders known as “The Family” who also have some grand designs of their own regarding a government of the Godly, and only for the Godly, as they define them.
Two weeks into my stay, David Coe, Doug’s son and the presumptive heir to leadership of the Family, dropped by the house. […]
“You guys,” David said, “are here to learn how to rule the world.” […]He walked to the National Geographic map of the world mounted on the wall. “You guys know about Genghis Khan?” he asked. “Genghis was a man with a vision. He conquered”—David stood on the couch under the map, tracing, with his hand, half the northern hemisphere—“nearly everything. He devastated nearly everything. His enemies? He beheaded them.” David swiped a finger across his throat. “Dop, dop, dop, dop.”
David explained that when Genghis entered a defeated city he would call in the local headman and have him stuffed into a crate. Over the crate would be spread a tablecloth, and on the tablecloth would be spread a wonderful meal. “And then, while the man suffocated, Genghis ate, and he didn’t even hear the man’s screams.” David still stood on the couch, a finger in the air. “Do you know what that means?” He was thinking of Christ’s parable of the wineskins. “You can’t pour new into old,” David said, returning to his chair. “We elect our leaders. Jesus elects his.”
He reached over and squeezed the arm of a brother. “Isn’t that great?” David said. “That’s the way everything in life happens. If you’re a person known to be around Jesus, you can go and do anything.
Anyone who doesn’t make the grade of course better watch their back. Just like the people of Iran who don’t get with the program. Liberals, intellectuals, moderates, Jews, and, of course Gays, which Iran’s fundamentalist religious leaders also believe homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.
And Outrage, in its release about the gay teens’ execution, noted that, “according to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. Last August, a 16-year-old girl , [Atefeh Rajabi] was hanged [in the Caspian port of Neka] for ‘acts incompatible with chastity,’ [i.e., sex before marriage].”
The American media are quick to condemn the brutality of the religious extremists who govern Iran. Yet these people differ from the religious extremists in our own country in only one essential regard: they have control over the government of their country. Imagine what would happen if the Christian extremists in our land ever acquired that same power. We already know that many of these power mad individuals who espouse the most virulent and hateful form of Christianity have assumed control of much of the current Republican Party infrastructure at both the local and national levels.
That should be all you need to do to realize that as bad as the Democrats have been (and you know I have been more than critical of their failures both before and after Obama became President), abandoning support for them in the upcoming election cycle in 2010 is not a viable option. Unless you want the Rick Warrens or Doug Coes (or their lackeys) of the Christian Right in control of this nation’s fate. For that is what will happen if we stay away from the polls and let the pied pipers of Fox News and all the crazies in the GOP lead their deluded tea bagging followers to increase the representation of Republicans in the Senate and the House.
Remember, when the Weimar Republic fell, the Nazis controlled only 30% of the Reichstag. But that was enough, with the help of their conservative allies, to stall effective legislation that would have prevented the collapse of a Democratic country intyo tyranny and dictatorship and fascism. We may not like a lot of the Democrats who represent us in the House and Senate.
We may be disappointed by the performance of the Obama administration in rejecting or failing to actively promote much of the progressive agenda many of us believe is necessary to return this country to prosperity. We may be severely disappointed that the bitter, illegal and ineffective decade long wars that George Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld instigated are still being pursued by this administration.
But when you look at the makeup of the other major political party in this country, and the insane beliefs systems of many of its leaders, the only conclusion that a rational person can draw is to fight even harder. Fight harder for progressive policies. Fight harder to win the public relations battle. Fight harder to convince the White House to adopt the programs and legislative goals that most Americans want to see passed into law.
And that means we must also fight harder to elect Democrats, even ones we may not like very much. Why? Because the alternative is a recipe for chaos and stagnation and history teaches us that those conditions increase the potential that any nation will cease to be governed by the Rule of Law and fall into the hands of despots with radical beliefs. Beliefs that will not only destroy “our freedoms” but end up killing many, many innocent people, both here and abroad.
The Democrats are a deeply flawed political party. The Republicans, however, harbor within their ranks a theocratic despotism based on the most violent and ugly interpretation of Biblical scripture. Based on those facts, the decision to continue to elect Democrats, and to work with and for change within the Democratic party is an easy one.
Well said and a different perspective. You would like to think that there are stopgap measures in our electoral process that would prevent something like this from happening, but judging from the reaction from the GOP and their willingness to embrace far-right fundamentalists and eschew intellect gives me great concern. How anyone can believe that Sarah Palin would be an effective president is beyond me. She can’t even use her governorship as an example, yet they are willing to put her in the White House. Of course there would be puppeteers (think Rumsfield, Cheney, et al) but that’s even scarier. Democrats need to start fighting back hard but for some reason we don’t have the guts for it. I’ve never understood that.
From: Left Blogosphere (Real)
To: Sellouts, traitors, corporatists, etc.
Re: The Future (Glorious).
Nach Palin, Uns!
That is all.
Democrats need to start fighting back hard but for some reason we don’t have the guts for it. I’ve never understood that.
I presume you mean the D.C. ones? There is one simple reason. $$$$$$. The left doesn’t have the people willing to shamelessly blow money of think tanks and stuff like the right. And even the think tanks on the left are weak and too corporate friendly(it’s different than being anti-corporation). Look at Brookings(a supposedly left think tanks). The main funder of Brookings doesn’t give a shit about anything besides Israel. It’s something he’s stated publicly. Do I ever see people from Media Matters or CAP on TV(except maybe .. maybe .. Podesta)? No!!
This brings to mind a quote by Molly Ivins that I saw over at Big Orange this morning:
IIRC, that famous quote belongs to Jesse Unruh, once speaker of the California assembly.
No worse than being ruled by fundamentalist secular nuts who consider anyone who opposes them corrupt and who are more than willing to kill those who oppose their vision of society ruled by the proletariat…
I’m less concerned about the adjective (religious, secular) than the noun (nut) because nuts come in all flavors spanning every political and philosophical spectrum (Mao Ze-Dong, Jozef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, et al.) and to put it mildly, it sucks to live under their rule.
Agreed, but right now our country faces the theocratic nut danger more than the secular nut version.
Thanks to the likes of Jane LIEberman and others, a right wing fundamental victory may be in order this year once again! Disgusting.
Here in my neck of the woods, myself and other progressives have decided to do flash-protects. Our last one was in front of Sen. Susan Collins’ office in Lewiston, Maine. Of course, to some “progressive liberals” this is hahd work and it’s much easier to go with the right wing fringe flow! And….Contrary to Sarah Palin’s idea that dead fish go with the flow. Sorry Sarah! Dead fish sink after a certain amount of time no matter if they’re going with the flow or not. The right wing fringers are the dead fish. They stink too.
The choice is:
Based on those facts, the decision to continue to elect Democrats,
and to work with and for change within the Democratic partyis an easy one.The country voted overwhelmingly for change and got the same old corporatist trickle-down free-market-as-God crap. We can vote for religious nut jobs or we can vote for greedy corrupt machine politicians that pretend to be helping us while they pick our pockets and bind us ever more tightly in corporate chains. The Democratic Party will not change. The Republican Party is changing for the worse. Why, indeed, should we not take the third option and not vote at all? Because the boogeyman will get us? More fear peddling. The Democratic Party is getting more Republican every day. Not surprising seeing all the Republicans infesting the highest levels of the Executive Branch and all the partisan operative prosecutors still safe in the Justice Department. All that has changed are the labels and the faces. Joe Lieberman is still the single most powerful Senator. Bernanke and Geithner still control the economy. Gates still controls the war machine that keeps spiraling upward. I could close my eyes and envision Bush spouting Obama’s lines, albeit haltingly and less grammatically.
I’m still waiting for candidates that are for the people, not the powerful.
The split in the Democratic party is basically between deontologists and consequentialists.
As such, it’ll never be healed, only papered over.
Problems of actual governance are never going to be solved by reductive simplification. Philosophy used to do this, until Wittgenstein called bullshit on the process, and he would know, having raised the bullshit level to a sort of pinnacle earlier.
So what we are left with is a game, just one main game, with only two teams on the field, and if you want to cheer for some team not even on the field, pardon me for tuning you out.
There is a repeating pattern in the history of law, where the process becomes more and more arcane and devoted to the service of the insiders, until it just breaks down and a big reform takes place. We’re not there yet, the catastrophe is still deniable, but we seem to be pretty close. No assurance of positive reform, of course, it can still be Germany 1933.
It CAN happen here. Google Stanford Prison Experiment.
We have no really good choices, only the Democrats. Ugly, but the alternative is uglier, so kiss the ugly baby and help it grow up.
Another excellent post from one of my favorite bloggers. Happy New Year, Steven. May sanity prevail!
Let me tell about the Religious Right. It is not a religious movement like the Iranian Revolution although there are lots of radical fundamentalists who think like ayatollahs. It is a political movement that was put together by Ralph Reed (on behalf of Virginia US Senator Robertson’s son Pat), Jerry Falwell (a Baptist segregationist preacher), and W. A. Criswell, a Republican-connected Baptist preacher in Dallas, TX. It’s sole purpose was to bring Ronald Reagan to power. It did this by creating the Moral Majority, holding a Jesus March on Washington, and taking over the Southern Baptist Convention. It was a movement to create religious front groups for the Republican Party.
From it were spawned any number of entrepreneurial ministries and think tanks and whatever dedicated to persuading the faithful to vote Republican and plumping for the faithful’s issues to keep the funds flowing in and the engagement in politics.
The Family is a different matter. It sought to oppose FDR through a religious ideology and then created itself as a secret society dedicated to taking over the government. Their Jesus is a facade, a catchphrase. They are fundamentally a pro-capitalist defense group in DC. Their house at C-Street is essentially a frat-house to benefit Congressmen who want to hide their personal dalliances in exchange for pushing the Family’s agenda. They have no base at all. They seek to capture power by subverting national leadership. No doubt in 2010, Republicans want to point to Democrat Bart Stupak, a resident there, instead of Tom Coburn or other Republicans. And Republicans outside the C-Street House are now wise that the Family seeks to subvert the Republican party as an instrument of its rise to power. Those outside-the-Family Republicans don’t want to lose their power to a bunch of frat-house owners.
Dick Armey and FreedomWorks have not succeeded in capturing the populist feeling in the boonies through their Tea Parties. It’s all Village media show.
It’s not votes that Democrats will lose if progressives sit out, it’s boots on the ground to do the canvassing and phone banking. It’s loss of financial resources. And the biggest threat is not from bloggers or blogreaders but from those who aren’t.
That is why it’s a tempest in a teapot.
Why support the Democrats? Well which Democrats are you talking about? The DNC? After Tim Kaine couldn’t persuade Creigh Deeds to run as a pro-Obama Democrat? The DSCC? After the performance of the Democratic caucus in the Senate? The DCCC? Well maybe but only if they remember that they need a strong candidate in every Congressional District, a candidate who is not afraid to appeal to the populist sentiment and call out Republican obstruction. Democrats might very well convert Republican seats to progressive Democratic seats if they are bold enough. Blanche Lincoln? No, sandbag her and try to pick up two Republican Senate seats. Harry Reid? No, he’s gone. Try to pick up two more Republican Senate seats. Guess what? Jim DeMint is vulnerable to being primaried by teabaggers. Anybody in Oklahoma bold enough to take down Tom Coburn? McCain is likely to be primaried by J. D. Hayworth. Do we have a strong Democrat there (without pulling Janet Napolitano) to pick up the pieces?
Progressives are not going to sink the Democratic Party in 2010, with or without the FDL folks.
What will sink the Democratic Party is its defensiveness, cowardice, and lack of boldness in going after Republican seats.
The Republicans have bet that they will hang together or be hanged together. That has been their strength in frustrating Obama’s agenda. But it is their weakness in 2010 if Congress succeeds in passing popular legislation. It might even be their Waterloo.
Why support the Democrats?
Because if we can get the attention of the Democratic leadership 2010 is a year of opportunity, not one of retreat.
And I understand that the way you get the attention of a donkey is to smack him between the eyes with a 2×4.
Booman Tribune ~ Why Support the Democrats?
great comment, good historical synopsis.
but as a donkey owner
Booman Tribune ~ Why Support the Democrats?
this is bullshit.
but if you’re talking about congress and the senate dems, then maybe a 4 by 8!
That is not an animal husbandry reference; it is a reference to an old hackneyed joke.
Democratic Party in 2010, with or without the FDL folks…
I wish I were that confident. From Kos’ most recent weekly tracker:
Great reminder of why we choose the democratic party in our two party system.
http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/
the so called democratic party has more or less zero credibility at this point.
for years the democrats stated “get us a majority in congress and we’ll get things done”.
Well?
as I’ve stated, failure in three crucial policy areas means failure/the end of the democratic party:
* Serious health care reform including a public option.
*
Putting 12-14 million people back to work.
** Passage of EFCA legislation.
the amateur, starry eyed dreamers over at the orange site who insist voters have only two choices are hopelessly ignorant and in denial regarding the fact fifty percent of eligible voters do not vote. THAT is the third choice.
I think that if 2009 has proven anything, it’s that the American plutarchy has figured out how to use the two parties in a good cop / bad cop game against the commoners. It’s not necessarily that they control the Democratic Party per se, but that they control enough of it to prevent meaningful reform on any major issue.
I view Jane Hamsher’s revolt against the HCR bill in a similar good cop / bad cop light. The religious right has played that game against the establishment GOP for a generation, and they have results to show for it. The key is to come back to the fold every November. That’s where the left has fallen down badly. That has to end.
The other front page post on the Pond today lamenting the absence of left-wing populism intertwines with this very closely. Somebody needs to be out front pushing for a return of 1950s-style tax brackets, for a confiscatory estate tax, for breaking up banks and insurance companies too big to fail, for shutting down the ones that consistently work to the public’s detriment. The younger generation is ready to hear these arguments, but somebody has to be in the public eye making them. The plutarchy will never take us seriously until we take disarming them seriously.
Racket” motif profoundly unsatisfying.
It’s bullshit anyway. No way the US armed forces would let that happen.
agree with your first observation.
The second however, is wishful thinking. In fact, it’s the opposite of the reality of post 911 U.S. military culture.
source
source
the incidents first reported on Al Jazeera are an affront both to the U.S. military code of conduct and America’s Afghan allies:
Needless to say, if civilian fundamentalist christians ever got hold of the reigns of war making power in this country, the U.S. military is probably our worst choice as a defense against it.
Either way, the idea that anyone would accept what the democrats are doing now because the alternative is worse has basically given in, as far as I’m concerned, to fear.
We’ve got to support the Democrats because the Republicans are worse!!!
What a fresh, new idea!
My concern is that as American power declines, the temptation to elect someone from the Religious Right, a la Sarah Palin, will become irresistible. The voters will become tempted by a religious demagogue (it could be Palin or someone else) promising to restore national greatness, and leading us down the path to hell. The United States is not immune from history, and as things get worse, they will get even uglier.
I think there are two structural obstacles to progressive change in this country, and we ought to be directing most of our energy at getting past them–
1 – Campaign Finance Reform. Until we free our congressional representatives from the burden of raising mountains of cash and prostituting themselves in the process, nothing is going to change. The entrenched economic interests have a stranglehold on our democracy.
2 – The Rules of the Senate. That body is ineffective because it is governed by all sorts of arcane rules that concede a great deal of power to obstructionist minorities, the filibuster being the prime example.
1 – Campaign Finance Reform. Until we free our congressional representatives from the burden of raising mountains of cash and prostituting themselves in the process, nothing is going to change. The entrenched economic interests have a stranglehold on our democracy.
I’ve heard all sorts of politicians whine about this, yet they never do anything about it. What does that tell you?
Until we have a progressive voice in the media – and I’m not talking one cable station – that’s too small to make a difference – until we have the power to lobby louder than the lobbyists for campaign reform, we’re not going to get it.
Until we have a progressive voice in the media – and I’m not talking one cable station – that’s too small to make a difference – until we have the power to lobby louder than the lobbyists for campaign reform, we’re not going to get it.
Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community
It has very little to do with any interpretation of scripture, and everything to do with marketing. If you are for war, claim to be fighting for peace, if you are for privilege, claim to be fighting for the people, if you are for your own egotistical self-interest, claim to be fighting for Jesus.
How a product is marketed tells you not what the product is about, but what it is not about. You wouldn’t need marketing if a product did exactly what it claimed to.