October 23, 2010
What Should Liberals do on Election Day?*
I'm a liberal and almost as angryI'm a liberal and almost as angry at Obama and the Democrats as I am of the Republicans. It's been building ever since they allowed George Bush and the GOP to get away with, well, everything. I've finally had enough and won't be voting for any Democrat in November. However, the alternative does scare me. While there are a number of examples of similarity between both parties, there would be a difference if Republicans regained control of either the House or Senate, or both.
What do angry, liberal non-Democratic voters want? Do they want Republicans to win all 435 seats in the House and every Senate race so they'll wind up with over 70 seats? If so, do they really think the GOP would govern exactly the same as the Democrats have? Do they really believe that Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, Marco Rubio and Christine O'Donnell - global warming deniers, creationists and anti-government zealots who want to dismantle Medicare and privatize Social Security (despite the risks) - would be no different then the Democrats or Republicans they'd be replacing (okay, not much of a difference if they'd be replacing Republicans, but you get my point)? My God, if that's what passes for candidates to the United States Senate these days, America should be embarrassed, and horrified.
Anyway, for the liberals who aren't voting for Democrats, how many seats do they want the party to lose in November? And if they lose that amount, would the Democratic Party understand why they lost all those seats and move left, or continue sprinting to the right? Obviously, they'll continuing sprinting right, the pathetic saps. That said, I am rooting for the Democrats because a Republican majority - or just "Senator Angle" - scares the crap out of me. So I admit I'm contradicting myself.
No doubt, there is a divide on the left. One side approves and apologizes for Obama and the Democrats while the other is very disappointed and extremely angry because of what they've done and not done. Hey, if it was wrong when Bush did it, then it's wrong when Obama does it too (and dead wrong when he goes even further than Bush did, and worse when he protects Bush Administration officials). And I'm firmly on that side. But look at the alternatives. The political terrorists on the right are down right frightening. So regardless of what I think of the Democratic Party, I don't want to see them get trounced in November. Or should I? So I admit I'm a little perplexed.
Yes, I'm disgusted at the afraid-of-their-own-shadow Democrats. Despite having the facts and logic on their side, they allowed themselves to be bullied and intimidated into the fetal position years ago. I wish the left was stronger. I wish we weren't dumped on, by Democrats. I wish Democrats weren't afraid to be Democrats. I wish the liberal wing was smarter and stronger. I wish we were taken seriously and listened to. I wish Robert Gibbs didn't sound like a caller to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. I wish Obama kept his campaign promises instead of continuing Bush's policies and covering up his war crimes. I wish Obama wasn't a hypocrite. I wish Democrats didn't put themselves on the defensive half the time and didn't allow Republicans to put them on the defensive the other half. I wish Democrats spent the last two years, 10 years and 20 years standing up to the right and taking them on instead of enabling them. But they didn't because they're wimps and have been thoroughly intimidated by the right. So this a lot more complicated then either voting or not voting for Democrats.
Liberals aren't going to get anywhere until the left is rebuilt because there is no left to speak of. At least not a serious left. And that's proven by this July poll in which 63% of Daily Kos readers (presumably very liberal readers) rated Obama - "Ronald Reagan-lite" as far as I'm concerned - as either doing a "good" or "excellent" job. It's almost 80% if you include "a notch above fair." What President are they watching ?
Also in July, Daily Kos and Americablog both reported a Democratic up tick in the "generic ballot." Americablog called it "good news" while Daily Kos reported it in a positive way. So they thought it was good news. I don't know, was it? Depends on your perspective I guess.
More "good-news-for-Democrats" polling from Daily Kos is here, although it's also old. A bit more recent "good news" is here.
I'm trying to make two points here. First, we'll never get anywhere with a left that overwhelmingly approves of Obama and the Democrats when they don't deserve it. And second, whatever organized left there is - Daily Kos, unions, MoveOn, Rachel Maddow and 80% of the left who approve of Obama and the Democrats - are cheerleaders for Democrats and intent on getting most of them elected and re-elected. But what good will that do? Democrats won't change - they never have - and they never will. And they certainly won't change Washington, ever. So the only way we're going to get real change is to rebuild the left outside of the Democratic Party. And I mean a total reconstruction because the only way we're going to save our country is with government rules, regulations, involvement and leadership; see Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman (we need liberals who "get it," but I don't even think today's liberals in Congress do). But with the way politics are now, there's no chance of that happening because the right has spent the last 30 years turning "liberal" into a dirty word and making government and government programs the enemy. And Democrats - who couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag - are terrified of Republicans calling them names; as if they wouldn't attack, insult and ridicule them anyway. So they've run (away) to the right and appeased Republicans; as if appeasing Republicans was even possible.
Laurence Lewis of Daily Kos:
Democrats fear being labeled as Big Spending Liberals, so while the economy still staggers from a severe recession, instead of pushing for an expanded stimulus they make deficit reduction part of the national political conversation. Democrats fear being labeled as the party of Big Government, so they struggle to take advantage when Republicans try to hold the middle class hostage for tax cuts for the wealthy. Nowhere is the danger of false narrative more disingenuous or more dangerous than on national security. How many Democrats initially supported the invasion of Iraq not because they thought it was just or likely to succeed but because they feared being labeled Soft or Weak?And it's this fear of the rabble-rousers on right that's hurting America. Tom Friedman of the New York Times:
In a year that’s on track to be our planet’s hottest on record, America turned “climate change” into a four-letter word that many U.S. politicians won’t even dare utter in public. If this were just some parlor game, it wouldn’t matter. But the totally bogus “discrediting” of climate science has had serious implications. For starters, it helped scuttle Senate passage of the energy-climate bill needed to scale U.S.-made clean technologies, leaving America at a distinct disadvantage in the next great global industry. And that brings me to the contrast: While American Republicans were turning climate change into a wedge issue, the Chinese Communists were turning it into a work issue.Republicans don't give a crap because they have absolutely no intention of addressing the country's problems maturely and responsibly. Ever. So from the day Obama took office, their priority has been to incite and inflame the partisan divide as much as possible by blocking everything; even if it hurts the country. What do they care? They'll just blame Democrats (which works because Democrats allow it to.) (December insert: Or make stuff up and blame government.)
In fact, it's in the GOP's interests for government and Democrats to fail because it reinforces their propaganda that they're bad, evil and incompetent (actually, it's Republicans and their anti-government cynicism that's bad, evil and
Until then, America will only continue it's rapid decline.
But before we even try and change Washington, tens of millions of minds need to be changed first because the left won't get anywhere until this knee-jerk anti-government eye-rolling "liberal" cynicism is completely turned around. And while we're at it, we might as well get money* out of politics and make selfishness** a national issue as well.
This could be done with a movement that not only conducts mature, honest and intelligent conversations with the country (no spin necessary) that explains the consequences of "less government" and "lower taxes," but also puts a damn chip on their shoulders and fights back*** hard against all the right's propaganda. And then take up issues Democrats have been intimidated into ignoring, such as abortion rights and - dare I say it - gun control (good luck with that). And then maybe we can begin to get smart, responsible and imaginative men and women elected, as opposed to ignorant, stubborn, dogmatic neanderthals who think every problem can be solved with "less government," "lower taxes," fewer liberals, more God, and more guns (good luck with that too).
Who does it, and how, I have no idea. But the left has to start sometime because the right has had an unopposed 30-year head start and is way out in front.
In the meantime, while I won't be voting for any Democrat in November, what should other liberals do? I don't know. I really don't.
There's no way liberals can vote for Democrats because despite holding the White House and having an enormous Congressional majority, they allowed Republicans to block, stall and delay everything that moved. And whatever legislation Democrats did get through was conservative leaning and watered-down (and they patted themselves on the back for it).
The Democrats are such a bunch of pathetic saps, that the wimp who hands over his lunch money to the bully every day can beat up Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi without throwing a punch.
A month before the elections, Democrats turned a political winner - failing to end Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and making the middle class tax cuts permanent**** - into a defiant and victorious "last stand" for the GOP (the Democrats feared that Republicans would accuse them of "raising taxes," as if they're not going to say that anyway. And since Democrats can't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag...). If that's not enough, with 110 executive and judicial nominees waiting Senate approval - mostly all blocked by the GOP - Democrats acquiesced to Republican threats and agreed to hold pro forma sessions twice a week. That, in effect, bars Obama from making recess appointments because the Senate, technically, would be "in session."
Where the hell is the leadership? My God, it's like taking candy away from a baby because Democrats are the baby!
But wait, there's more.
Obama has ridiculed and mocked liberals while Joe Biden said liberals should "quit whining" as if we should be thankful for all they've done for us. And Pennsylvania's supposedly "liberal" Democratic Governor, Ed Rendell, joined in on the action as well.
This is what Democratic leadership thinks of their "ungrateful" base who they need to keep them in office.
If I wanted our government run by conservatives who attack liberals, ignore liberals, make fun of liberals, sell out liberals and cave to Republicans every single time, I'd might as well vote Republican!
And they wonder why liberals don't want vote for the Democrats.
On the other hand, withholding votes for Democrats would elect more Republicans (I feel like a rat in a maze for Christ's sake!). Look at what Republicans are like now in a deep minority; imagine what they'd do with more seats or control of the House and/or Senate . Heck,
Seriously, why don't Republicans just just torch the country and be done with it?
But this is the box liberals are in. It's either conservative saps and nothing changes, or conservative fucks and everything gets worse. A lot worse.
What about supporting only smart, legitimate liberals such as Sen. Russ Feingold? That I can see. In fact if there's one Democrat that deserves to win re-election it's him. But that would result in "Senator Angle" because there's no way a fed up liberal can willingly vote for a pro-gun, pro-life old relic like Harry Reid who allowed 40 and then 41 Republican Senators walk all over him.
What a disgrace (and I haven't even mentioned Carl Paladino and Rich Iott). These are the choices? This is the level of intellect? This is the best America has to offer? My God, it's like choosing between a pile of dirt and a teaspoon of poison. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in. Who needs terrorists when America's doing a great job of destroying itself? Yes, America should be embarrassed, and horrified.
Conclusion
As this blog has clearly proven, the Republican "Party" has no intention of governing, ever, and their only priority is to keep their brainwashed base in a perpetual state of rage against all the enemies they've conveniently created: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy (for 35 years), Democrats, liberals, liberalism, government, government workers, unions, the media, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, ACORN, the Black Panthers, (Jan. 2011 insert: the Tides Foundation), (Jan. 2011 insert: Frances Fox Piven and her deceased husband, Richard Cloward), environmentalists, Hollywood, France, Muslims, the UN, etc. So the GOP is not a political party at all. It's a cult. And it's this cult - thugs, bullies, demagogues, anarchists, Christian fundamentalists and political terrorists masquerading as politicians, along with their brainwashed followers - that has used a mob mentality to destroy our political system, gut government, paralyze the legislative process and turn whatever governance there is into a one-sided street fight...on purpose (so problems fester and are allowed to worsen, which, as I said, reinforces the GOP's propaganda that "government is bad, evil and incompetent." And voila! A new cynical, anti-government conservative voter is born!).
Simply put, our country has been hijacked and the government taken over by a theocratic cult because no one stood up to it. And in just 10 years, they've destroyed the country from within. Osama bin Laden didn't do that; Saddam Hussein didn't do that; Islamic fundamentalists didn't do that; the bail outs didn't do that, the health care legislation didn't do that; the media didn't do that (although they helped, a lot, because Fox "News" and conservative talk radio are a major part of this cult); Bill Clinton didn't do that; Barack Obama didn't do that; Ted Kennedy didn't do that; and liberals (what liberals?) and liberalism (what liberalism?) certainly didn't do that. Republicans and their massive cult did. Every bit of it (but they got their brainwashed followers to believe everything gone wrong is all the left's fault. Of course they did, that's what cults do.). But that's why Republicans are worse, a lot worse, then Democrats. And that's saying a lot since the Democrats are horrible.
Maybe the reason why the Democrats have been miserable failures all these years is because they ran to the right and helped implement the Republican agenda. That would be an indictment of conservatism. So perhaps we should put an end to this mad dash to the right and give - perish the thought - bold leadership and "big government" liberalism a chance. This is where I'd say "it sure as hell couldn't do any worse," but it already worked (see Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman). And that's what the leaders of this cult are afraid of: being proven wrong. Because that would cost them their believers and their cult (fat chance as it is), and in effect, their power.
So while we can blame Democrats for many things, their biggest fault lies in the fact that they allowed themselves to be bullied and so thoroughly intimidated by the right, that they ran to the right themselves and let it happen. And that goes for Obama too.
But when you consider the GOP's disastrous record and what they've done to the country; when you consider the GOP's history of not just being wrong, but couldn't be more wrong; and when you consider the fact that Republicans only care about the unborn and clinically dead - and if you're somewhere in the middle, then the hell with you, unless of course you're extremely wealthy or own guns - there shouldn't even be a Republican Party anymore! So the dysfunctional Democrats aside, how anyone can vote for a Republican - anywhere, for anything - is beyond me. But incredibly, millions will. Cults will make you do things like that.
So all that said, I guess you can put me down for about half of that pile of dirt. Although the best thing that could happen would be if no one showed up to vote.
* The only way to get money out of politics is to ban all paid TV and radio campaign advertising. I know, I know, "the First Amendment." But if Congress can get the tobacco and liquor industries to agree to stop running TV and radio ads, then there's no reason why We the People can't get political candidates who have polluted the airwaves for decades to do the same. No ads by the candidates or the parties, and no ads by individuals or groups on behalf of a candidate or party. No ads means, no ads. Period.
Actually, since they wouldn't be able to raise money, the national parties (the DNC and RNC) would no longer exist. Hey, so much the better!
Contributions would still be necessary to cover the cost of the campaigns, but strict spending limits would be imposed depending on the size of the district or state. Also, money would only be allowed to be raised, up to the spending limit, from residents within the district for a House race and within the state for a Senate race (maximum limits on contributions would remain). Presidential campaigns would obviously have the highest limit, but contributions can come from anyone in the country.
If this is what it takes to clean up politics - and to put an end to this , this and this - so be it.
This doesn't mean an end to ads altogether. Campaigns and individuals are free to make their own ads and put them on the internet. It's the paid TV and radio advertising that has to go because that would remove the reason for having to raise this obscene amount of
What about free air time? We already have them, they're called debates. Politicians are always telling us that they have all the answers to the country's problems, so what better forum is there to prove that?
How will candidates get their message out? Shaking hands, kissing babies, the free media and more debates!
Hey, if anyone doesn't like these strict rules and high standards, good, then they don't have to run and we'll get higher quality candidates.
Not only would this level the playing field for all candidates of all party affiliations, and therefore invite smart, responsible and enlightened citizens with ideas (remember them?) to run for public office, this would also force campaigns to rely on more volunteers and unpaid staff. And that would only strengthen the spirit of our democracy.
Since Republicans can't win elections on, you know, the truth, the facts, the issues, ideas, intellect and honest debate; and can only win elections by perpetuating fear, bombarding the airwaves with attack ads and dumbing down a mindless and gullible electorate with hate and ignorant and redundant talking points, they'd need an excuse to oppose this. And theirs would be "all the power the liberal media would then have." Their base would obviously buy it and that's all that matters. But it's a myth because if the media's so liberal, how does the right explain this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this? So if anyone should be concerned, it would be the left because of the conservative media.
I don't know what excuse the Democrats would use. But the real reason would be that the leveling of the playing field might take away from them being the only alternative to the GOP (which is why they got elected in 2006 and 2008).
But if politicians really cared about America and were serious about getting money out of politics, there's no reason why they shouldn't agree to this. In fact, I'd take it as a slap in the face from any politician who would oppose it.
It would be the best gift Congress ever gave to America.
In lieu of this, what about slapping a 50% tax on all TV and radio ads, with 40% going to the federal government and 10% to the state in which the election is in? For local and state races, the numbers can be flipped, 40% going to the state and 10% to Washington.
Politicians tax everything, why not their nauseating campaign ads?
With billions of dollars squandered every year on these ads - and a billion more in a Presidential election year - at least it would allow the tax payer to make some money off that political sewage. In fact, this would be a great way to fund a national public option health insurance plan (hey, it's better then taxing stock market trades).
I'd prefer my first idea, banning all ads altogether. But this would cut the number of ads by half, maybe more. And we can get a public option out of it too. And that would be the second and third reasons why Republicans (and some Democrats) would oppose it.
One more note on campaign ads. For all the public's anger about these attack ads, and the money behind them, it's really our fault that there's so many of them because they work. But for a society that's so cynical, and thinks is so sophisticated, where everyone thinks they're smarter then everyone else, how can anyone be influenced one way or another by a TV or radio ad? In fact, political candidates count on the electorate being that stupid and that gullible so they can be distracted and easily manipulated (which is what the ads are designed to do).
So we're not nearly as sophisticated and smart as we think we are. If we were, the ads wouldn't work.
Wise up America. Ignore the ads and demand real debates.
** Every industry and group lies, cheats, manipulates, spins and attacks for their own personal narrow-minded interests. So selfishness has become an national epidemic. And that forces politicians to pander and they end up doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
The county's welfare is a hell of a lot more important then any single industry, conglomerate or group. If only we had smart, honest, enlightened leaders who realized that decades ago, maybe our country wouldn't have fallen so far so fast.
If an industry or group, such as Big Oil, Wall Street, ethanol producers, gun owners, unions, lobbyists, politicians, the voters or anyone else who want something their way - implementing a law, repealing a law, blocking a law, carving out their own special benefit in the tax code or their own pork - then they shouldn't have to lie, cheat, manipulate, spin or attack to build support for it. In fact, whichever side is lying, cheating, manipulating, spinning and attacking the most is not only the most selfish, but has proven that what they want is good for them, but bad for the country. If it's good for the country, then the truth and the facts would bear that out and they wouldn't have to lie, cheat, manipulate, spin or attack at all.
Politicians pander for two reasons: one is for the political contributions bribes they need to run campaign ads. And the second is because if they were honest and told the truth about all the unpopular things that needed to be done, they'd be voted out of office, or wouldn't even win their election to begin with.
So for the country to change, that has to change. We need to elect smart and honest politicians who won't tell us what we want to hear - such as calling for an increase in the gas tax and a tax on carbon - so we can begin to do the right things for the right reasons. But for that to happen, besides banning all paid campaign advertising, we need a selfless electorate whose interests are with the country's welfare, not their own.
Campaign financing and selfishness are just as important as health care, energy and the economy. Probably more so because, as we've seen, doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons by pandering to (fill in the blank) will only make our problems worse. A lot worse.
And when they do, you can be sure the Republican "Party" and Fox "News" will be right there to blame Democrats, liberals and "big government." And then they'll call for "less government" (for everybody but themselves) and "lower taxes" as the solution; which was most likely the cause of the problem in the first place.
*** The narrative coming out of the so called "liberal" media is that Obama and the Democrats were "too extreme" (i.e. too liberal) and they need to "head back to the center." Have we moved so far right that George Bush was "the center?"
But I've proven that Obama and the Democrats have legislated so conservatively that they can be compared to Ronald Reagan's GOP of the 1980's. So they're not liberal. Heck, they're barely moderate (so much for the "liberal" media).
But let me see if I have this straight. When Democrats practically govern like Republicans, capitulate to Republicans by passing conservative legislation, passed a market-based health care bill that was very similar to the one Republican Governor Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts, and also placed restrictions on health insurance companies - such as prohibiting them from canceling someone's policy when they get sick - that's "extreme" and way too liberal. Nope, we can't have any of that. But when Republicans want to advance creationism at the expense of evolution, gut government, substantially reduce and/or privatize Social Security (Oct. 28 insert: or "wean everybody off" it), hand out vouchers in place of Medicare, repeal guns laws, oppose the re-authorization the assault weapons ban, and have placed so many restrictions on abortion***** that there are states that have just one clinic that provides them, that's "reasonable" and gets a free pass (can you imagine the outrage from the, um, "reasonable" right if guns sales were so restrictive that there was just one gun store in all of Montana?).
Because of the right's bullying and intimidation, and the Democrats all crunched up in their fetal position, not only has "reasonable" become "extreme" and "extreme" become "reasonable," but it's become very easy to "blame both sides" or say that "both sides are extreme." And that has to change because it's the thugs on the right that are extreme and play nasty partisan politics, not the afraid-of-their-own shadow Democrats.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times:
...(Obama's) big government expansion everyone talks about never happened. (So) why does everyone think it did?...The answer is that there has been a disinformation campaign from the right, based on the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers. And this campaign has been effective in part because the Obama administration hasn’t offered an effective reply.(Bold mine. BTW, Mr. Krugman backs up his claim here, here and here.)
So liberals and the Democrats can not allow themselves to be drawn into the "both sides play nasty partisan politics" and "both sides are to blame" narrative ("a pox on both their houses") because it keeps moderates, independents and even liberals home on Election Day. Meanwhile, Republican voters would walk on their hands and knees in the snow to the polls.
It's sort of like a school yard bully who gets into a tussle with a wimp and they both get sent to the principal's office. But the bully wins because he got the wimp's lunch money and wasn't the one who got beat up.
So Republicans win when "both sides" are "partisan," "wrong" or "extreme." And they know it. In fact, it's part of their political strategy. Therefore, in order for the country to know that there are differences in the agenda, and maturity level, between both parties, the left has to stand up for themselves, fight back and challenge the right. Call them out for what they are.
And then maybe one day the "liberal" media will say that Republicans are "too extreme" and "need to move to the center." But good luck with that since they never said it when George Bush and the GOP controlled Washington.
November 8 insert: Bill Maher explains that the left and the right are not the same, here.
**** Talk about pandering. Were it up to me, I'd allow all of Bush's tax cuts to expire. Other then the fact that it is class warfare to keep some but not others, we simply can not afford them. As for the tax cut Obama gave to 95% of the country in 2009, he only campaigned on them, as did Bill Clinton in 1992 and John Kerry in 2004, because they all knew the Republicans would accuse them of being "tax and spend liberals." And they needed a way to deflect that. And guess what? The Republicans called them "tax and spend liberals" anyway.
Talk about doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
***** Another reason why some states have just one abortion clinic is because radical anti-choice extremists and fundamentalists have not only threatened and intimidated abortion doctors but have stalked, kidnapped and murdered them.
But they're not the only extreme radicals the right has at its disposal. Just to name a few, there's the NRA and the growing number of militia groups who have threatened to kill policemen; there's the threatening letters with suspicious white powder being sent to Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva's district office because of his opposition to SB 1070; and there's Sharron Angle and Republican Congressional candidate Stephen Broden talking about "Second Amendment remedies" and a violent overthrow of the government should they fail to get the results they want at the ballot box. (Oct. 26 insert: Rand Paul supporters tackled and stomped on a woman because she's, well, a liberal.)
And it's these thugs, anarchists, assassins, terrorists and political terrorists, along with established Republicans and the Tea Party protesters (who proudly declare that they "didn't come armed, this time"), that have the nerve to justify their actions by blaming it on the "tyrannical extremist Socialist agenda that Obama and the Democrats have implemented" (yea, I wish). And that riles up these radicals and Tea Party crowd even more. But by doing so, it proves they're the un-American tyrants and extreme radicals who are destroying the country.
So this is what we're dealing with here: a number of extreme radical groups cults - some, um, "pro-life" and religious-based, some neo-Nazi, and some masquerading as political candidates - inside one massive powerful cult. And it'll get worse because no one is standing up to these homicidal anarchists while the Republican Cult and it's powerful propaganda machine condones, supports, organizes, incites and inflames them.
Some of them are already in Congress. More are on the way. And just wait until they get "one of their own" in the White House.
You thought I was kidding when I said the country was hijacked and the government taken over?
We're beyond scary and horrifying.
November insert: Regarding the Democratic elections loses, I'm with Ian Welsh, here and here, and Glenn Greenwald, here.
This post continues here.
+/- show/hide this post
