Choose Progressive Change, Or Democratic Loyalty - You Can't Have Both
How do they do it? That is the question progressives should be asking right now. How do the insurance companies manage to kill health care reform in a supposedly democratic republic, where public support for health care reform, and I mean the kind progressives can get behind, is overwhelming?
In a word: leverage.
The insurance companies have leverage over politicians. Most of that leverage comes in the form of money. God do they have a lot of money. But they also have something else. They are loyal to no one and no party. They don't care if you're Democrat, Republican, or Green, as long as you can be sufficiently bought off, or sufficiently threatened into compliance.
There are after all only two forms of leverage in politics. Threat and reward. Or, more traditionally, carrots and sticks. The insurance lobby uses both to great effect. Progressives know all about carrots and sticks. Carrots for Democrats, sticks for Republicans.
But special interests like the insurance lobby aren't so choosy. And that's where they get their real power. They are just as happy, for the most part, to buy a Democrat as a Republican. And they are just as happy to run either out of town.
Progressives don't use this power because we know that using sticks on Democrats may result in Republican victories. So no matter what some Democrats do, the worst they can expect is a primary challenge which, as we saw with Lieberman, will probably fail.
So the end result is progressives have little or no leverage over Democrats. And, as a result, progressives are in a constant state of frustration. Sure, Democrats come crawling at election time. But one fundamental, yet unstated reality pervades: Where ya gonna go?
Some, in an attempt to remedy the situation, have advocated making the Democratic party more progressive by taking it over. "Be the party you want," they say. "Infiltrate."
This is a pipe dream. The entire structure of the two party system is designed to prevent that from happening. There will be no crashing of the gates. No progressive Democratic revolution. I explained the pipe dream in more detail <a href="http://www.docudharma.com/diary/15219/more-progressive-plan">here</a>. But long story short, almost every bought out, sold out, corrupt Democrat in Washington started off trying to crash the gates.
The truth is, both parties are controlled by the same monied interests. This way, as the late Carroll Quigley observed, when an election occurs, real power doesn't change hands.
The Democratic party is not designed to represent the common people. It is designed to contain us. To create the illusion of representation so that we don't revolt.
So in lieu of the pipe dream, I was asked recently what I recommended. The answer is simple politics 101: I recommend doing precisely what every powerful interest group in Washington does. I recommend using leverage.
But that is risky is it not? I mean, if we use sticks on Democrats in general elections, we could lose our majority in Congress. The White House. Right?
You don't have a fucking majority in Congress. Or the White House. Please figure that out. Your majority is an illusion. We don't have Democrats and Republicans. We have "in-the-pocket-of-big-oil" and "not-in-the-pocket-of-big-oil". We have "in-the-pocket-of-big-pharma" and "not-in-the-pocket-of-big-pharma." Those are the real parties.
Please figure this out: Parties are illusions that only start to become real when you get to the bottom of the food chain. In the Senate, they are almost all illusion. It's all about what interest you serve. And that's all about the money. The rest is a sideshow.
Only when we realize this, and use our leverage accordingly, will we gain real political power. The only leverage a politician understands is the power to make him or her LOSE.
You want a more progressive Democratic party? You have to be willing to lose. It's that simple. Sure, it may cost them their "majority", but they will never fuck with us again.
This is how you get "better" Democrats. This is we change this country. THis is what our enemies have long understood. There is no other way. Leverage.
In a word: leverage.
The insurance companies have leverage over politicians. Most of that leverage comes in the form of money. God do they have a lot of money. But they also have something else. They are loyal to no one and no party. They don't care if you're Democrat, Republican, or Green, as long as you can be sufficiently bought off, or sufficiently threatened into compliance.
There are after all only two forms of leverage in politics. Threat and reward. Or, more traditionally, carrots and sticks. The insurance lobby uses both to great effect. Progressives know all about carrots and sticks. Carrots for Democrats, sticks for Republicans.
But special interests like the insurance lobby aren't so choosy. And that's where they get their real power. They are just as happy, for the most part, to buy a Democrat as a Republican. And they are just as happy to run either out of town.
Progressives don't use this power because we know that using sticks on Democrats may result in Republican victories. So no matter what some Democrats do, the worst they can expect is a primary challenge which, as we saw with Lieberman, will probably fail.
So the end result is progressives have little or no leverage over Democrats. And, as a result, progressives are in a constant state of frustration. Sure, Democrats come crawling at election time. But one fundamental, yet unstated reality pervades: Where ya gonna go?
Some, in an attempt to remedy the situation, have advocated making the Democratic party more progressive by taking it over. "Be the party you want," they say. "Infiltrate."
This is a pipe dream. The entire structure of the two party system is designed to prevent that from happening. There will be no crashing of the gates. No progressive Democratic revolution. I explained the pipe dream in more detail <a href="http://www.docudharma.com/diary/15219/more-progressive-plan">here</a>. But long story short, almost every bought out, sold out, corrupt Democrat in Washington started off trying to crash the gates.
The truth is, both parties are controlled by the same monied interests. This way, as the late Carroll Quigley observed, when an election occurs, real power doesn't change hands.
The Democratic party is not designed to represent the common people. It is designed to contain us. To create the illusion of representation so that we don't revolt.
So in lieu of the pipe dream, I was asked recently what I recommended. The answer is simple politics 101: I recommend doing precisely what every powerful interest group in Washington does. I recommend using leverage.
But that is risky is it not? I mean, if we use sticks on Democrats in general elections, we could lose our majority in Congress. The White House. Right?
You don't have a fucking majority in Congress. Or the White House. Please figure that out. Your majority is an illusion. We don't have Democrats and Republicans. We have "in-the-pocket-of-big-oil" and "not-in-the-pocket-of-big-oil". We have "in-the-pocket-of-big-pharma" and "not-in-the-pocket-of-big-pharma." Those are the real parties.
Please figure this out: Parties are illusions that only start to become real when you get to the bottom of the food chain. In the Senate, they are almost all illusion. It's all about what interest you serve. And that's all about the money. The rest is a sideshow.
Only when we realize this, and use our leverage accordingly, will we gain real political power. The only leverage a politician understands is the power to make him or her LOSE.
You want a more progressive Democratic party? You have to be willing to lose. It's that simple. Sure, it may cost them their "majority", but they will never fuck with us again.
This is how you get "better" Democrats. This is we change this country. THis is what our enemies have long understood. There is no other way. Leverage.
Advertisement
I have been one of those who wants to play it safe. We have to vote for dems, if we don't the repubs will win and I don't want another republican president.
It is beginning to dawn on me that it doesn't matter. If we have a republican president, we don't get what we want. If we have a democratic president and control of both houses of congress we still don't get what we want, so what the hell difference does it make? What was this past election all about? Why did we waste all that time, money, and effort, if the bottom line is that the system is rigged. Heads we lose, tails they win...
Would some one please explain me to me how just a few months ago the republican party was in disarray and no one could figure out how they could be anything but a marginalized party for the next 2 decades, and now they are poised to pull off a coup of major proportions? And we're frickin' sittin' here with our thumbs up our butts? I just don't get it.
Limbaugh, Beck, Steele, Palin, Jindahl, Huckabee, Bachmann, Gingrich...these, these has been, jokes are the people running the republican party and they are kicking our asses. They aren't giving us a black eye...They are kicking our asses. And we are such weenies that we're laying down and letting them.
September 4, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we have a republican president, we don't get what we want. If we have a democratic president and control of both houses of congress we still don't get what we want,
Its because this Democratic president and most of Democrats of congress are democrats in name only. Most, if not all, are either conservatives or they were bought by corporations.
If it comes down to a choice of voting for Republicans or Democrats who have betrayed you, you should vote for Republicans. Sad, I know, but it is the optimal choice. In wars, you should always consider traitors to be your worst enemies because they have the potential to do the most damage to you. Another way to look at it is that if you don't vote Democrat traitors out of office, you will have no chance of getting what you want in the future.
September 4, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's "most" Democrats in Congress.
Unfortunately, it's enough Democrats in Congress that, with the Republicans, they have a working majority for evil.
September 4, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't this tried in..oh...what year was that Shrub guy elected President? It worked out so well that time we might as well try it again.
September 4, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, I really don't think Limbaugh, Beck, Steele, Palin, Jindahl, Huckabee, Bachmann, Gingrich" are beating us. I think what is 'winning' is deep-seated fear of change in a lot of decent, normal Americans (only the fringe of whom are seen running around with tea bags).
It's basic human nature and, frankly, to be expected: they geared themselves up and voted for a big change last fall .... and now are experiencing the back-lash, second-guessing, feeling the fears that come when the adrenaline wears off.
They DO know how to ignore Rush & Co. - they showed that in nominating McCain and electing Obama. What they can't turn off are their own fears. Yelling at them, however correct and wise we may be, isn't going to calm them down, and Obama can move no faster than he can get the large group of citizens in the middle to go.
And that edgy, emotional, insane quality to the actions of the fiercest opponents? That's all you can do when you have no real argument to make. (If the law is on your side, argue the law; if the law isn't on your side argue the facts; if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, take off your shoe and pound it on the table.) ---------- Go back and look at some of the newsreels of the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth supporters of segregation -- ordinary housewives and businessmen who were probably quite normal and even nice in other ways -- screaming obscenities at little Ruby Bridges as she walked into school in her lovely white dress. I think the crowd will look familiar.
September 4, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been in a bad mood lately over my feelings of impotence in the political process. I haven't come to a conclusion yet whether I bear responsibility for that or if there is truly nothing I can go, given my family obligations. So, anyway, I'm crabby, and probably not thinking real clearly. But this subject, in my mind, needs to be explored further.
September 4, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with that -- and understand the feeling of impotence all too well. I guess that the change between today and Nov. 2, 2004 (when Bush was RE-elected!!)is still so great that I'm still feeling somewhat optimistic, for the first time in a long, long time.
September 6, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want a more progressive Democratic party? You have to be willing to lose. It's that simple. Sure, it may cost them their "majority", but they will never fuck with us again.
I completely agree with you.
September 4, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's problem is that he ran on "hope" and "change."
He is failing to deliver either. Unlike with love, it is worse to have hoped and have those hopes dashed, than to never have hoped at all. It creates angry disillusion, leading to on the one hand cynicism and the other rebellion.
Cynics we have plenty of. Rebellion, in the form of things like the Progressive Block, are a natural outgrowth, and IMHO, sorely needed.
September 4, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I don't find this convincing at all. First, there's not enough of "you" to make such a threat practical.
Second, the two major parties are not interchangable. While you may be getting disappointing government from the Deomcrats now, you would be getting recklessly bad government from the Republicans. Is this a case of "The worse, the better."? If you're going to stand by and let things go down the shit tube in expectations of future political advantage, bad news: the problem with the shit tube is not that it is real long, it is that it never comes to the bottom. It just keeps on going.
Third, some of the posters at TPM seem to be unable to accept any kind of victory (let along accept defeat) unless it's the most absolute victory that can be imagined. Forget the half-a-loaf question, for them 99.9 percent success represents an utter failure which can only be caused by betrayal. As a result, all "traitors" must be hunted down and punished.
All or nothing makes a great slogan. But no one and no thing can actually have it "all." If you actually try, you will get nothing.
September 4, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry my post offended you. But on the first point, snark aside, the progressive and liberal base is enough to sink the Democrats. Your assertion that it's not is ridiculous.
And yes, on the big issues - the parties are interchangeable. How one could look at the performance of the Democrats since 2006, for example, and deny this is beyond me.
Your third point seems to be more rooted in your own emotional state and resentment than anything objective. I don't know who these TPM posters are, but you should cite them so they can defend themselves.
Your final point is worth knocking down though. What the fuck are you talking about? ALL? You think I want it all? We can't even get the EFCA. The health care reform agenda is dead barring some miracle. The Iraq war continues unabated. Obama is just replacing American troops with thug mercenaries.
We already have nothing.
September 4, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why this post isn't getting more attention. We're getting all agitated by the health care debacle, and it IS important, but it is just a symptom of a bigger problem. A much bigger problem.
Being a new dem who is still feeling her way around, I am just beginning to visit this subject in my mind, but your opinions have real validity and we need to get a good discussion going about it.
September 4, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, there are enough of us.
(1) Follow the "Progressive Block" strategy (credit Chris Bowers). Progressives in safe districts must refuse to compromise away essentials (for instance, they must vote against any bill with no public option). If they compromise away essentials, we can attack them in primaries. We may win, but more likely they will just line up behind us.
This depends on the Republicans remaining continuously obstructionist, of course, but that's a reliable bet.
If Obama decides to screw the progressives, he then screws himself. If he decides to back the progressives, the Republican-sympathizer Democrats have two choices: (1) sabotage Obama and the Progressives and get hit with a primary and Democratic voter hostility; (2) go along and reap the rewards.
Part of the principle: we run primaries, withhold money, and are generally hostile to everyone who caves. Or, in safe liberal districts where the Republicans are irrelvant, we run third-party candidates. If this makes Republicans win, so be it; the 'representatives' refusing to stand for the people are simply Republican collaborators, so it doesn't matter.
We draw lines in the sand and unleash scorched earth against those Democrats who violate them. Mutually assured destruction, perhaps, but it's the only way to avoid capitulation.
It's different in a single-man office like President, but in Congress this sort of pressure really works. Lieberman got lucky, although he used a huge amount of insider power to do so.
September 4, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Only when we realize this, and use our leverage accordingly, will we gain real political power. The only leverage a politician understands is the power to make him or her LOSE.
You want a more progressive Democratic party? You have to be willing to lose. It's that simple. Sure, it may cost them their "majority", but they will never fuck with us again.
This is how you get "better" Democrats. This is we change this country. THis is what our enemies have long understood. There is no other way. Leverage."
You got it 100% correct!
September 4, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, you could have neither.
September 4, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
How does that saying go again? Cut off your nose...
September 4, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You want a more progressive Democratic party? You have to be willing to lose. It's that simple. Sure, it may cost them their "majority", but they will never fuck with us again."
- I disagree. In fact, I think the opposite is true.
If Democrats have to make a choice between a majority of electorate and a progressive fringe in their own party, they will choose centrism every time - because that's how they win (with the obvious exception of lack of serious opponents, as in last election).
Unless progressives can convince the country in the appropriateness of their vision, they will be just an isolated fringe, a more exreme version of a typical Democrat.
But for all the ranting and anger and finger-pointing, progressives would be well advised to look at themselves in a mirror and see if they actually represent something new or just a blast from the past that voters over 35 already went through.
September 4, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some minor corrections:
If Democrats have to make a choice between a right-wing fringe and the progressive majority of the electorate and in their own party, they will choose phony centrism every time - because that's how they *used to* win.
The polls show that my description of American views is correct. We simply have to make them lose if they choose phony centrism. There is no other way to teach them.
Lieberman barely won despite having essentially unlimited institutional support. Senate terms are six-year so it's going to hurt for a while. House terms are two-year, and we can win more often than not, and often enough to make candidates understand that they're dealing with a real force.
September 4, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The minute you said progressive fringe, I lost all respect for your viewpoint.
September 6, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is so much material here:
An observation at least as old as Zinn and Chomsky and others.
Joe Biden takes lots of money from the credit card companies (located in DE). 'Nuff side. People in America like brand names: Kennedy. Bush. Clinton. Rockefeller. Pelosi. Biden (look at the carefully constructed career of his son).
But let me be clear: there is a difference between the two parties. Many of my left-leaning friends used this line during the 2000 election between Gore and Bush when they voted for Nader. I suspect they came to rethink their position after the Bush election.
I do not believe this statement. I know you will quote polls. But:
Where were the people during the Healthcare NOW! rally?
Where were the people in the MoveOn.org vigils?
Where were the people screaming outside the restricted GOP town hall meetings?
The fact is: there is no evidence that even a sizable minority is willing to put effort into seeing Healthcare reform go through. The opposition is. That's why you saw disrupted townhall meetings. That's why the people you see interviewed on cable are the opposition -- they are willing to get in there and dig in, loudly.
If I said to you: "why don't people under a dictator simply vote him out of office?" You'd laugh in my face. But the same people laughing will think that a poll will prove something to a politician.
Images: that's what politicians are scared of. Images in the news, on youtube, all over.
That's why the physicalness of the opposition is able to control the debate.
And exactly what is healthcare reform? It's easy to be against it: that's only *one* opinion. But to be for it? What type of reform?
So the first thing that the pro-healthcare people need to do is simply bring a physicalness - not a polled opinion - to the table. You've heard of "Get out the vote!"? Same is true here. And stop debating what type of healthcare reform initially.
Step 1: Make it inevitable that healthcare reform will happen in a timely manner. The opposition showed you how to do this. Get on the news. Be loud. Be numerous. No violence required. But be loud. Be numerous.
Make the rally fun! It's not an intellectual exercise... give people a reason to show. Make it exciting.
Step 2: Now that you have the politicians in the corner saying "yes, there will be reform"... THEN figure out what type of reform. (And repeat Step 1).
The Democrats like to brag about big tents -- but that does mean a lot of varying interests. It's a good chance you will be disappointed in the final outcome if you view the glass as half empty. Start out by being grateful the glass is half full and you can at least wet your mouth to get to fight another day.
September 4, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Where were the people screaming outside the restricted GOP town hall meetings?"
They were there, they were just polite. The media prefers to report on screamers.
Unfortunately, they report on *Republican* screamers positively, and *Democratic* screamers (Cindy Sheehan?) with mockery. Accordingly, the media bias is a very big issue here, and not one you have provided a plausible solution for.
September 4, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, of course.
So what have we learned?
September 4, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so tired of "media bias" being used by both sides when they don't like what they see in the media.
In an age where we have viral videos there is no reason in the world to complain about media bias... from either side.
September 4, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But let me be clear: there is a difference between the two parties. Many of my left-leaning friends used this line during the 2000 election between Gore and Bush when they voted for Nader. I suspect they came to rethink their position after the Bush election."
While Gore was an exceptionally great Democrat, and Nader was an idiot and an ass (he didn't care about environmental issues -- while running on the Green Party ticket?!?), it didn't make any difference in the long run, since the election was stolen by the Republican members of the Supreme Court.
You're quite right about the difference. The Republican Party is a fascist party, full stop. The Democratic Party is a loose coalition, which has so far acted like the Catholic "Centre Party" in 1930s Germany -- you can look it up if you don't know what they did. But it contains a subset of members who are actually trying to do good, along with a number of sheer self-interested idiots who don't recognize the dangers of the fascist party.
Voting for the Centre Party didn't help much in 1930s Germany.
September 4, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post reads as a primer on why Democrats don't get it.
First, it screams victim mentality.
You know, after the 1960 election, the GOP didn't go on and on about shenanigans in Chicago which, as we all know, probably didn't hurt Kennedy's election. They looked forward.
Second, Nader did draw off support and money, especially since it was a tight election.
Third, Gore didn't care his home state, which would have made Florida irrelevant.
Fourth, Gore didn't want Clinton to campaign for him -- which turned out to be a serious tactical mistake.
Bottom line, did the GOP have shenanigans go on in 2000. All evidence says "yes" (though Gore would have lost if everyone kept to his legal case because many of the stolen votes wouldn't have been counted in his global strategy).
But the Dems allowed the election to get that close.
Also, the GOP isn't a 'fascist party' any more than the Democrats are a 'socialist party'... although I know I will not be able to convince you of this.
September 4, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, progressives may not get everything they want but I still prefer a country with Obama/Biden at the helm rather than Bush/Cheyney or McCain/-shudder-Palin. Maybe it makes no difference to you, but it does to some of us.
However, going with your thesis -- I'm still not sure what you are proposing when you say we should "use our leverage accordingly." What specifically are you suggesting that we do? I'm really just sort of at a loss trying to picture what I would *do* if I decided to go down this path?
September 4, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's this talk about sleeping with the enenmy and dumping our beloved party? I am just as unhappy and fustrated with every muchracker politician as you are. We know the weakness of Democratic politicians; for the most, they're winnies. We're getting our butt kicked by the opposition because, frankly, we have no balls at the Speakership or in the Senate. And even though we have control of the 2 branches of government, we want to share the decision in law making with the opposition. When are we going to realize that REPUBLICANS ARE JUST NOT INTO US? They had their eight years and all that time we followed! It is our time, it is our turn and we must not squander this opportunity.
The Republicans do not have better brains than us, they just have better noses. They know where the wind is blowing. Now, just giving up is not going to make it better for us or for our families. You want to see dire consequences happen, just let the opposition take control of the government once again. Does any one of you have any more babies to give to the military for overseas assignments? Do any one of you want your children to pray in school? Work 60 hr weeks and get paid at below minimum wage? Or,how about no longer having a government as it could all be outsourced? WE MUST OUTLAW POLITICIANS FROM RECEIVING FUNDS FROM ANY CORPORATIONS .. would be a start. Bailing out will not ameliorate the situation.
September 4, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"WE MUST OUTLAW POLITICIANS FROM RECEIVING FUNDS FROM ANY CORPORATIONS .. would be a start." Great idea, please outlaw the lobbyists too.
September 4, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Term limits?
Public-funded only campaigns allowed?
A repeal of corporate rights?
What's your solution?
Term limits might make reps actually do work rather than worry about being re-elected. But could it also make myopic politicians even more myopic? No corporate campaign money, absolutely would reduce their influence. Would that make the pols actually vote their conscience? Corporations are the same as people--what would happen if they weren't thought as people? Then wondering about a human's right to privacy, say Edward, vs. Blue Cross's freedom of speech might go a bit easier?
Leverage. Carrots and sticks. Willing to lose. Ok.
But another quality is that we have to be willing to win as well. What specifically can create that environment?
September 4, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I smell a troll.
September 4, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you should use your brain instead of your nose to think with. And by the way, what a pathetic argument.
Here
September 5, 2009 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh, a testy troll!
The problem as you lay it out is perfectly fine.
Your solution, however, is that we should deliberately fuck ourselves even more than we are already fucked.
So what's there to use my brain about?
The answer is easy: NO!
Now don't go jumping to conclusions about me: I'm all for voting for underdog losers. I do it all the time. The trouble with choosing to lose is that the cost is even higher when Republicans are in office.
You must be relatively young. You clearly haven't been tortured long enough by Republican rule. I've got new for you: Our country is destroyed. It's too late to vote for utopia. Horse, barn door, gone.
Therefore, your advice is worthless.
It benefits the Republican Party and no one else.
Your turn.
September 5, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your gasket is already blown. And by the way, you are the one exhibiting trollish behavior. Ad hominiem attacks, unprovoked and straight out of the box. Adolescent snark, likened to a teenage girl. No clear indication that you even read my post.
Or just that you're not very bright. Regardless, your mindless allegience to Obama and the Democrat establishment is not something I would ever want to intrude upon. So farewell and good luck.
September 5, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your gasket is already blown. And by the way, you are the one exhibiting trollish behavior. Ad hominiem attacks, unprovoked and straight out of the box. Adolescent snark, likened to a teenage girl. No clear indication that you even read my post.
Or just that you're not very bright. Regardless, your mindless allegience to Obama and the Democrat establishment is not something I would ever want to intrude upon. So farewell and good luck.
September 5, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink