« Before Casting that Stone - A Few Insights From and Beyond Nuremberg | AdAbsurdum's Blog | My Apologies to Mignon Clyburn and Good News for Net Neutrality »
A Proposal to Shift the US Political Center Via a Take-Over of the Vulnerable GOP Base By Liberals Discontented with the Democratic Party
Liberal disgust for our party has become quite a no-brainer. Under its oversized umbrella, the Donkey's wide straddle from the people's republic of Vermont to Landrieu's McCain-voting constituency is becoming an increasingly uglier balancing act to contemplate from down below amid the grassroots. The pretzel-like contortions in which our Republicratic party must engage to hold its lukewarm coalition together in order to push any sort of policy must surely be a source of amusement to the defeated, yet ever more cohesive, wingnuts. Meanwhile, disgusted liberals justifiably seek to bolt but are reminded by sanctimoniously odious centrists like myself of the self-defeating evil-breeding consequences of Naderism which only hands power over to the lunatic fringe. The extremists are still powerful because even as the GOP loses moderates and influence, their party becomes more radicalized while the Democratic party grows into decreasingly effective, tepid majorities.
Meanwhile, the extreme right continues to engage in the hijacking of our institutions by controlling the base of the Republican party and thus controlling important strategic positions such as our schoolboards and by engaging in propaganda aimed at the wobbly center to which the Democrats are hostage. It is clear that we are hijacked by them, and they operate unfettered by us. So here is my proposal to the sizeable disgusted liberal faction of the Democratic party. If you have already vowed to stay home rather than again support the Dems, forget the Greens and the Socialist third parties. Instead, do something which would shift the nation's center. Water down the Republican party. Register as Republicans. Vote in numbers in Republican primaries. Let the Fundies know exactly who's coming for dinner. Dilute the bejeezus out of the Religious Right's disproportionate influence on the GOP platform. Shift the Republican party to the left. Reclaim the party from Nixon, Reagan and Palin in order to return it to Lincoln, and thus allow the entire national political center to shift.
In my view this would be a win-win strategy for Liberals who already feel that the Democratic party is a total waste of time. Political results will not be immediate, but the de-radicalization of the GOP would definitely change the political landscape significantly more than any third party ever will in the absence of a parliamentary system. In addition, there are short term satisfactions to be enjoyed as the liberals register and potentially outnumber the radicals in many constituencies. I am referring to the look on the the gun nut's face when the dirty effing hippies show up to vote in their primaries and caucuses, challenging the hate platforms, and ousting the flat earth school boards. If enough lefties show up, the rightwing extremists will be the ones pouting and leaving to form third parties just in order not to coalesce with supporters of marriage equality, choice, and single payer healthcare. Now that is change in which any Liberal can believe.
Meanwhile, the extreme right continues to engage in the hijacking of our institutions by controlling the base of the Republican party and thus controlling important strategic positions such as our schoolboards and by engaging in propaganda aimed at the wobbly center to which the Democrats are hostage. It is clear that we are hijacked by them, and they operate unfettered by us. So here is my proposal to the sizeable disgusted liberal faction of the Democratic party. If you have already vowed to stay home rather than again support the Dems, forget the Greens and the Socialist third parties. Instead, do something which would shift the nation's center. Water down the Republican party. Register as Republicans. Vote in numbers in Republican primaries. Let the Fundies know exactly who's coming for dinner. Dilute the bejeezus out of the Religious Right's disproportionate influence on the GOP platform. Shift the Republican party to the left. Reclaim the party from Nixon, Reagan and Palin in order to return it to Lincoln, and thus allow the entire national political center to shift.
In my view this would be a win-win strategy for Liberals who already feel that the Democratic party is a total waste of time. Political results will not be immediate, but the de-radicalization of the GOP would definitely change the political landscape significantly more than any third party ever will in the absence of a parliamentary system. In addition, there are short term satisfactions to be enjoyed as the liberals register and potentially outnumber the radicals in many constituencies. I am referring to the look on the the gun nut's face when the dirty effing hippies show up to vote in their primaries and caucuses, challenging the hate platforms, and ousting the flat earth school boards. If enough lefties show up, the rightwing extremists will be the ones pouting and leaving to form third parties just in order not to coalesce with supporters of marriage equality, choice, and single payer healthcare. Now that is change in which any Liberal can believe.
Advertisement
















Jason Everett Miller is already trying this.
In limited settings it is already doable: Right to Life took over some liberal Republican areas using similar tactics.
September 7, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admit my post was somewhat meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but should the idea get any sort of momentum, my wish would be to see this approach taken by those who are decidedly liberal and not merely by moderates.
September 7, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a better idea: Let's all move to Canada.
September 7, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very amusing. I actually DO have relatives in Canada.
Ack!
September 7, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an interesting option to those not having any disabilities deemed costly to the Canadian public healthcare system therefore rendering them ineligible to immigrate. Oh perfect Canada.
September 7, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, AbAdsurdum. That's a ridiculous example that muddies the issue of healthcare with immigration. Easy to be critical from this side of the fence.
Meantime, I can't take your post seriously. Should I? I still don't know.
I'm not a centrist (what's the effin' point?), and I think self-described centrists are actually reluctant Republicans anyway. So why not register as one? Go ahead, knock yourself out! I'm not interested in playing that game, there's too much real work to be done every fucking day, and I'm too impatient with this particular idea that keeps cropping up at TPM. Obama never promised us a rose garden, so why are you even disgusted? He's doing exactly what he said he would do: compromise liberal ideals to gain Republican votes on legislation.
Sorry, but I prefer the Left's "fringe" to the Right's base any day of the week, so I have no problem staying where I am.
September 7, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those on costly anti-retroviral and other therapies, when public healthcare limits their immigration prospects, the issue is important. I'm so glad it does not affect you. However, I did not intend this post to digress into one about Oh Canada the perfect. I'll eagerly initiate a discussion on the subject elsewhere.
This post's proposal is only as serious as it is feasible, and commentary from those with any mastery of polical science would enlighten the discussion. I do think that shifting the center by siezing the GOP from the radical fringe benefits all. My suggestion that disenchanted liberals entertain the challenge was not, I promise dear Gasket, meant to be derisive. On the contrary, I felt that liberals bolting the Democrats would be the most competent to do so. A shifted center also pushes the Dems and the entire nation leftward.
As for myself, I am a centrist in the context of the center as it is defined more internationally, as in Europe or my native Venezuela. My views fall well to the left of those of US centrists, fwiw.
September 7, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with you, dear AdAbsurdum, but I am entitled to refuse to take on the topic of reforming Canada's immigration policies in this post, aren't I?
Now that you've clarified for your American audience that you are not using American definitions of political terminology we are generally accustomed to, I think it's a more interesting proposal because it's much more radical. But not everyone who reads your post can understand how radical you mean it to be. Because your definition of "centrist" and your readers' definition(s) are different.
Please try to understand something about my comment. I think I'm older than you are, and with even one more frustrating presidential election cycle under my belt comes impatience when people seem like they can't go the distance, can't stand the heat, can't endure the marathon that is American politics. I have no patience because I literally have less time on the planet than you do. I am interested in getting people the help they need right now; I'm not that interested in gaming the two-party system, and I can't comment on whether it's a worthy idea. I just can't bring myself to register as a Republican. Maybe I see things as more of an emergency than most people here do. Maybe it's because I learned everything I ever needed to know about Republicans when Reagan was in office, as I watched his destructive effect on this country give birth to multiple terms of political radicalization. I see Americans as totally screwed at the moment with no opportunities whatsoever, and that's where I'm coming from.
And just to be clear, I'll add that, no, I do not abide screwing people of other nations as a way to fix our problems.
September 7, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your observations over the past year and a few months have repeatedly forced me to re-read my words and re-evaluate their significance. Thanks for your candidness.
September 7, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, thanks for reading me in the first place! I think you're a good writer, AdAb, and I appreciate your sense of humor and your informed perspective. I wish you would write more often, in fact, but maybe you don't have time.
September 7, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh perfect Canada.
Canada has about one-tenth the population of the U.S., and taxpayer-funded single-payer. If the U.S. were to dump its 1 million hardest cases across the border, it would be the equivalent of the U.S. taking on 10 million of the world's hardest cases.
To let in people with medical conditions that require costly treatment would tax the system greatly. The people who would come in would almost certainly be the people whose medical treatments cost much mroe than they would pay in taxes.
You seem to be implying that Canada's policy is inhumane and unfair. But why is it the responsibility of Canadian taxpayers to offer expensive healthcare to the entire population of the U.S.?
What if a million people, all of them poor and able to pay very little in taxes, and all with severe medical conditions, were to try to move to Canada? Could the Canadian medical system handle it? What you deride as inhumane is simply Canada's desire to stay solvent.
September 8, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for fleshing out my point that tax-payer funded single-payer systems have consequences in other areas of policy-making. Any debate without discussing these consequences is incomplete.
September 8, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, okay. We agree then. I though you were simply suggesting that Canada had unfair policies, I did not realize that you were pointing this policy out explicitly as a necessary result of their health system.
September 8, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the local level, one party or the other has a pretty tight grip on power. Within the party, the dominant individuals also have a pretty tight grip on power.
Leading an insurrection within a dominant party apparatus at the local or county level is not an easy thing to do.
September 7, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to agree, but years of gerrymandering of precincts and districts serve to render the challenge even more daunting, or at least so it seems to me from where I am in Texas.
September 7, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In some places this would be far more easy than others, though no place perfectly simple. Some primary states allow party registration on primary election day. They also allow write-in votes. Twitter around 24 hours or less and I bet one could have enough to turn a few incumbents in states with historically low primary turnouts due to one party dominance.
Ditto caucus states. If nothing else it would cause a little apoplexy on the other side.
September 7, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd most eagerly settle for apoplexy. Aside from Twitter, I can also fantasize over an atypical stealth coordinated dog-whistle campaign at southern state minority churches, and the ensuing shock and disorder following the fait-accompli. This demographic, however, would not fall strictly under the disenchanted liberals category originally targeted in my post, but the resulting shock and chaos would be a most definite treat were the logistics to render it feasible.
Day-dreaming aside though, it seems to me that in our limited two-party system such an approach is acceptable and sometimes necessary. The Republicans certainly felt this was the case under Limbaugh's instructions during the last Democratic primary.
September 7, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting candidates on the ballot, as part of a winning slate, is the problem. Ballot access is the key to success.
September 7, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about the primaries due to an average of 17% turnout. Gerrymandering and the general elections favors the incumbent of either party, while all incumbents remain very vulnerable in the primary no matter which party.
Problem with your proposal is that far left liberals will piss off moderate conservatives thus leading to a more radicalized GOP and not less.
The better plan is to encourage more conservative democrats and independents to go back to the republican party en masses, this leaving a more liberal democratic party in its wake and changing the republican party back into one that Ike or Abe might actually recognize.
Recommended for thought value alone, though agreeing with my political raison d'être certainly helps as well.
September 7, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reality you paint is sobering, but it is imperative that this future moderate Republican party not serve as it has in the past as a vehicle for the haters, the racists, and the other zombie evil sectors of American culture that will never go away and which do not belong under the umbrella of the Conservative party that should responsibly play the role of checking the Liberal one. I do not trust moderate Republicans to chase the haters away, whereas the presence of Liberals in their party would poison the air for them. It is a conundrum to which I find no solution.
September 7, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could link to plenty of "liberal" voices who are the same when it comes to things they don't like or understand. Xenophobia is an American trait, not one of parties. The "haters" as you call them represent a small (and shrinking) percentage of republicans.
I think the real problem is relying on labels such as liberal or conservative or hater or whatever-the-fuck to describe individuals, which are always substantially difference from what appellation is being applied, typically by someone who only has the barest idea of the competing political ideas anyway.
Until we figure out a way to mitigate the fringes without assuming every member of the opposing party shares those ideas, this country is screwed.
September 8, 2009 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. I'll find a better name than "hater" for Glenn Beck, Mike Savage and their listeners and even for whosoever their mainstream equivalents may be on the left.
September 8, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, I bet many of their listeners disagree with most of the shit they say and simply think it is funny.
I think it is appropriate to label individual comments with those sorts of definitions if they are appropriate. I have to, because I am fond of using that linkage as a way to dispute obviously idiotic posts on the left and right.
Rapture Right or Looking Glass Left or Limbots is more descriptive using fewer words than would usually be necessary.
September 8, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rush Limpballs has been telling his audience to do this for a number of years. Just another cheap parlor trick.
September 8, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rush Limbaugh wishes to shift our political center and have less polarized parties? Who'da thunk?
September 8, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
He keeps telling his listeners to switch parties to nominate the most unelectable. On election day, there's nothing that says you must vote for the party you are registered for. That way their Party wins hands down in all races on election day.
September 8, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink