Slog
News & ArtsMonday, April 11, 2011
2012 Obama's Off Base
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:33 AM
A Democratic President kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties—he puts the nail in the coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office—and he does it on the first day of his re-election effort. And Beltway reaction to that is... huh, good move. That's the difference between Republican politics and Democratic politics. The Republicans may not love their base, but they fear them and play to them. The Democratic Party institutional structures of D.C., and the Beltway press in particular, not only hate the Democratic base—they think it's good politics for Democratic politicians to kick that base publicly whenever possible. Only the base itself will ever change that.
One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders (at least in presidential elections; there is a good case that the Democrats got crushed in 2010 in large part because their base was so unenthusiastic).
In light of that fact, ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore—and, when desirable, step on—the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them?
The relationship between the Dems and Republicans is often described as a "hostage situation". Republicans threaten to kill the country with starvation if the Dems don't cave. Progressives also have a "hostage situation". Obama threatens to kill the country with Republican rule if progressives don't cave (by voting for him). What do progressives do? Joan Walsh will vote for him anyway. Sam Seder will vote for him anyway, if only because of the Supreme Court. What will you do? Which burnt bridge is a bridge too far for you? More importantly, what should progressives do as a group?
The choice is clear. Unless some primary challenger turns up, it's Obama or some Billionaire-financed Teabag-worshiping Republican. I won't express myself on the shoulds of the decision, not yet. Is it automatically worse if a Republican wins in 2012 and the Democratic Party goes up for grabs? I'm not prepared to say. But I will express myself on the shoulds of the discussion—we have to be talking about this now, and well within earshot of Team Where Else You Gonna Go?
What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?
...
But let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that $38 billion in spending cuts—and a much larger cut relative to his own budget proposals—was the best deal available. Even so, did Mr. Obama have to celebrate his defeat? Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face of high unemployment—cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment — are actually a good idea? ... More broadly, Mr. Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion—a philosophy that says the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay. Shared sacrifice!
In retrospect people see President Clinton's moves in 1995 as savvy approaching brilliance, at least in political terms. But it didn't seem that way to many people at the time. Certainly, almost everyone from the liberal wing of his party thought he was giving away the store and a more general belief in his fecklessness was almost universal across the Democrats' ideological spectrum. It wasn't quite as it appeared though. Clinton is a political intuitive. At the most generous reading he let the Republicans take their punches until they'd allowed themselves to get dangerously exposed politically ... and then he made his move. Doing so earlier would have been foolish, certainly in political terms and quite likely in policy terms too.
If that's what the Friday night deal was about, it could be shrewd. The costs in terms of over-zealous cutting are small—very small—in comparison to the vast decisions to be made next. For that reason, I'm not convinced yet that this was quite the defeat for the president that a lot of people are claiming. It all depends what comes next.
Discuss.
1
Here's what I don't understand: When they say the Republicans "fear their base," does that mean they think Joe Nascar is going to vote Democrat if his demands aren't met? Because I really don't see that. I remember when the Midwest didn't automatically vote Republican (my grandfather was a good example of this: blue collar working guy in Indiana, not registered with a party, voted for whomever he liked best), and when Republican meant less spending, not right-to-lifers and Jesus. The two sides are so completely polarized now I don't see why either of them would fear their base at all. I mean, honestly, even if Obama keeps none of his promises, I will still vote for him, because I'd have to sustain a head injury to vote Republican. I'd imagine most Republicans these days are the same, to the extent that injecting religion into the party platform has left them with no other choice.
2
Yeah, and look how well it worked out for Martha Coakley. What, never heard of her? That's because she lost the 2010 senate race to Republican Scott Brown -- in fucking Massachusetts! Don't engage the base: the base stays home.
3
@1 No. I think it's more that the Republican base has enough nuts, wingers, funding and airtime that they can destroy incumbents in the primaries if you give them enough motivation.
The Christaliban has pulpits and leaders. The right-wing, rabble-rousing, talk-radio leviathan makes a living raising blood pressures, and their listeners are addicted. So, a Republican elected leader who acts like a RINO (i.e. doesn't hew to their dogma) will get bagged.
The Democrats, not so much. We haven't got the organizational foci or funding for it. As Will Rogers famously said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
The Christaliban has pulpits and leaders. The right-wing, rabble-rousing, talk-radio leviathan makes a living raising blood pressures, and their listeners are addicted. So, a Republican elected leader who acts like a RINO (i.e. doesn't hew to their dogma) will get bagged.
The Democrats, not so much. We haven't got the organizational foci or funding for it. As Will Rogers famously said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
4
And this is why voter turnout is at an all-time low. When the choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, sometimes the only choice is not to play the game at all.
5
What bugs me is there is no left-wing party in America. The Democrats are Center-left sometimes, Center-right frequently. The American political barometer has been broken by Reagan. When the right wing was urging Obama to "move to the center", and this to the President who has been sending out a huge number of drone strikes, abandoned plans for a national health service (something that right-leaning government like the UK and France have) and prosecutes whistleblowers to a huge degree...
Sigh.
I know it's naive and idiotic to complain about candidate Obama versus President Obama, but really, Candidate Obama was the first candidate in a long time to actually make credible promises for left-wing policies. And then he gets into office and he's more right than Bill Clinton was, and his fellow democrats in Congress are even worse. I weep for democracy in America.
Sigh.
I know it's naive and idiotic to complain about candidate Obama versus President Obama, but really, Candidate Obama was the first candidate in a long time to actually make credible promises for left-wing policies. And then he gets into office and he's more right than Bill Clinton was, and his fellow democrats in Congress are even worse. I weep for democracy in America.
6
You should always vote Republican. You will never be disappointed, and occasionally you will be mightily entertained.
7
It also helps that the Republicans are so far off in Tea Party la la land that I can't see myself voting for *any* of them right now. They're just not a credible alternative, to me. So yes, Obama and the Democrats can step all over their left-wing base and nothing will happen.
What would be great (as @5 suggests) is to have a new left-wing party, à la the NDP in Canada--a socialist labour party--or to have the Greens be a credible thing. That would require the left to put the weed down and actually *do* something, so it'll never happen, but it would be great.
What would be great (as @5 suggests) is to have a new left-wing party, à la the NDP in Canada--a socialist labour party--or to have the Greens be a credible thing. That would require the left to put the weed down and actually *do* something, so it'll never happen, but it would be great.
8
None of this should surprise anyone, at least in retrospect; Obama was always center-right and convinced enough well meaning voters to vote for him with an excellent advertising campaign. Anyone basing their vote on what he actually said could see that whatever promises he would keep would be conciliatory to conservatives (foreign + military policy) and and what ones he would break would be clearly lined progressive principles (climate change, civil liberties, financial regulation, health care). He allows conservatives to frame the debate on economic policy because deep down he believes them (Chicago school of economics). A great campaign does not good governance make.
Frankly, until 'the base' refocuses their energy on electoral reform (election day national holidays, gerrymandering laws, multiple winner/instant runoff voting etc) they'll continue to be misrepresented and kicked in the teeth.
Frankly, until 'the base' refocuses their energy on electoral reform (election day national holidays, gerrymandering laws, multiple winner/instant runoff voting etc) they'll continue to be misrepresented and kicked in the teeth.
9
None of this should surprise anyone, at least in retrospect; Obama was always center-right and convinced enough well meaning voters to vote for him with an excellent advertising campaign. Anyone basing their vote on what he actually said could see that whatever promises he would keep would be conciliatory to conservatives (foreign + military policy) and and what ones he would break would be clearly lined progressive principles (climate change, civil liberties, financial regulation, health care). He allows conservatives to frame the debate on economic policy because deep down he believes them (Chicago school of economics). A great campaign does not good governance make.
Frankly, until 'the base' refocuses their energy on electoral reform (election day national holidays, gerrymandering laws, multiple winner/instant runoff voting etc) they'll continue to be misrepresented and kicked in the teeth.
Frankly, until 'the base' refocuses their energy on electoral reform (election day national holidays, gerrymandering laws, multiple winner/instant runoff voting etc) they'll continue to be misrepresented and kicked in the teeth.
11
I don't think the dems have a monopoly on kicking their base in the teeth in order to get reelected. I remember Rush Limbaugh having a shit fit back in '04 when George W approved expanded prescription drug benefits for seniors.
12
There's a problem with all the criticism of the president. If "progressives" are going to attack the spending cuts--and I believe there's no shortage of things to attack--they need to come up with an alternative scenario that realistically addresses the impending fiscal crisis. Yes, we need to raise taxes on rich people, but that is not going to fix the problem. No, really, it's not. The fact is if you want to be grown up about this discussion--and it's a discussion that's going to continue; this is just the beginning--"progressives" need to come up with some viable other things to cut in order to bring the budget back to sane ground. Maybe it's military spending, or social security, or whatever. But don't just blast the president (and even the congress) for cutting spending. If you want to make a serious critique, have a serious alternative. We cannot spend our way out of this. No social programs are going to save the day. No amount of tax increases are going to solve the problem alone. It's going to be painful. And it's probably mostly the Republican's fault. But stuff still needs to get cut. This might just be an okay start--or at least the start of an adult conversation?
13
@1 nailed it as well as @5. Living in the south now, (I love my life), they WANT to turn America into a divided wealth gap with a flailing underclass. At the heart, the Republican party wants to turn the USA into Mexico. Crappy education and an oppressive police force. Stifling all development, creating local monopolies, and keeping the money in the old families (and they have crap money when compared to other regions of the country).
You can't have talks about the true "free market." Obama is assumed to be socialist, even though they have no evidence to support this. Global warming is a controversy. It's depressing how ubiquitous the cool aide is here, and everyone with half a brain cell, who wants to make real money and use their education LEAVES. Except of course for those industrial technicians in the early stages of their career, there are a couple of jobs down here that can help keep our careers alive. But their retention, isn't really that great. Playing nice with the good ole boys is stressful. Realizing that, the standard of living isn't really that cheap when you compare the costs of what your children get out of the school systems, all try to leave, or settle on private school. It is sad all around.
You can't have talks about the true "free market." Obama is assumed to be socialist, even though they have no evidence to support this. Global warming is a controversy. It's depressing how ubiquitous the cool aide is here, and everyone with half a brain cell, who wants to make real money and use their education LEAVES. Except of course for those industrial technicians in the early stages of their career, there are a couple of jobs down here that can help keep our careers alive. But their retention, isn't really that great. Playing nice with the good ole boys is stressful. Realizing that, the standard of living isn't really that cheap when you compare the costs of what your children get out of the school systems, all try to leave, or settle on private school. It is sad all around.
14
@ Mr. Me,
How can you have a credible conversation when the political dialogue is swamped by planned parenthood, NPR, and teachers.
They are cutting off their nose to spite their face to force this "principle" that isn't founded in reality.
I think the thing that kills tax revenues more than the rich and poor divide is our deflated wages! Let's talk about that shall we.
How can you have a credible conversation when the political dialogue is swamped by planned parenthood, NPR, and teachers.
They are cutting off their nose to spite their face to force this "principle" that isn't founded in reality.
I think the thing that kills tax revenues more than the rich and poor divide is our deflated wages! Let's talk about that shall we.
15
@5 and 7: Perhaps you have heard of the Socialist Party of the United States. They have a newsletter and a long-standing organizational structure. You can even vote for a Socialist for President (in many states). It does not kill any puppies, I promise.
16
@12: To your credit, you do raise the point of increasing taxes. The problem is, no one on the right is having an adult conversation like you want because unlike yourself, the very notion of raising taxes ever is utter anathema to them.
Raise taxes, cut defense. that should be the start of the conversation.
Additionally, If America had a 21st century infrastructure, the economy would improve. Instead we have a mid-20th century infrastructure that is no longer the envy of the world, we have crappy roads, bridges falling down, and major airports that look like crumbling Stalinist hunks of concrete. I know there was supposedly this big infrastructure initiative, but it was a joke. It hasn't accomplished much at all. We need High Speed rail coast to coast, comprehensive public transport in every city over 200,000 residents, those are all not too difficult. We know how to do those things. Fixing education is going to be complex, so take the time to sort that out, but infrastructure is a solved problem, all it takes is the will to start.
Raise taxes, cut defense. that should be the start of the conversation.
Additionally, If America had a 21st century infrastructure, the economy would improve. Instead we have a mid-20th century infrastructure that is no longer the envy of the world, we have crappy roads, bridges falling down, and major airports that look like crumbling Stalinist hunks of concrete. I know there was supposedly this big infrastructure initiative, but it was a joke. It hasn't accomplished much at all. We need High Speed rail coast to coast, comprehensive public transport in every city over 200,000 residents, those are all not too difficult. We know how to do those things. Fixing education is going to be complex, so take the time to sort that out, but infrastructure is a solved problem, all it takes is the will to start.
17
Winspur, I am only familiar with Ruport Murdoch mass media, I don't know anything about "socialists" in this country, other than they are Nazi's, born in Kenya, and right now ... I guess there is a bill going into Congress (passed by the house) to deport any of these terrorists from Acorn back to Kenya and/or Indonesia.
18
And Salmon, I think all of that will happen .... sigh ... once the cantankerous baby boomers die ...
19
Obama threw u guys overboard the day he got elected. Fun to see the loony left realizing that, like the rabid right, are extremists best ignored.
20
I'm one of those who doesn't see compromising on the budget to the tune of $38 bil a kick in the base when the tea baggers were demanding 60 billion + kill NPR & Planned Parenthood.
I remain generally fairly happy with the O. He hasn't been as great as I'd hoped, but he's done a lot for us and I have absolutely 0 remorse about backing him.
I remain generally fairly happy with the O. He hasn't been as great as I'd hoped, but he's done a lot for us and I have absolutely 0 remorse about backing him.
21
@13 You paint a grim picture my friend. The way I remember the dirty dirty south is if you get sick, get hurt, or end up on the wrong side of law and you have money then your fucked, but that it offers many opportunities for those willing and able to work. But I lived in Texas which isn't entirely southern.
22
@13 & @16 - USA #1 UNDEVELOPING nation in the world. USA! USA! USA!
American Exceptionalism: actively choosing to become a shittier place.
American Exceptionalism: actively choosing to become a shittier place.
23
@21. If you willing and able to work. The underclass just doesn't get the opportunities, family structure, education, or social connections to allow you to work. Convicted felon? ha! Sucks even more if you are black. As a large white athletic male, who looks like he "played some football." It's cute to think I get some social clout. They always root for the big men down here. In general, people are "friendlier" more welcoming and more hospitable. It's not all too unpleasant, considering the Pacific Northwest has some of the most frigid and neutered people on the planet, but roots and family roots are vital for true acceptance down here. Family connections will get you a job in the town, it will give your children more social acceptance, it will often get you ahead in your education (high schools still have fraternities and sororities down here). If you didn't grow up here, it's really easy to feel like an outsider ... you are also working WAY WAY WAY more hours down here trying to keep your career alive more so than a typical southerner. To be honest, many of these free market self entitled weirdos, work only 7 hour days and take Saturdays off ... spent most of their time getting hammered and chasing southern tale, but their family connections will guarantee their success in life. It's kind of counter intuitive
24
Republicans desire to destroy government.
Democrats desire to build government.
It is far easier to destroy than build. The democrats will always be at a disadvantage in this regard, even when they have a majority, because the dems can argue with each other over the best way to build, but the repubs have it easy in that there's really only one path they need to follow in order to destroy.
Democrats desire to build government.
It is far easier to destroy than build. The democrats will always be at a disadvantage in this regard, even when they have a majority, because the dems can argue with each other over the best way to build, but the repubs have it easy in that there's really only one path they need to follow in order to destroy.
25
I agree with #8 that none of this should be any surprise; in point of fact, I (a voter about as progressive as they come) did not vote for Obama in 2008, precisely because he had already shown his true colors with his abrupt about-face on the FISA issue in early July. At that point I called his campaign HQ and told the polite (if somewhat scandalized) woman on the phone that I simply could not give my vote to Obama if he ended up voting for FISA, a bill he had earlier pledged not only to vote against but to filibuster. Obama broke that campaign promise (again, long *before* the election), but I kept mine, and did not vote for him.
In response to #7, who states that it would be great if the Greens became a credible party, which would "require the left to put the weed down and actually *do* something." The main thing we can and should *do* is actually start voting for the Greens and other 3rd parties who pay attention to our interests. Until we do that –until we pose a credible threat– the democrats will simply continue to ignore our voices; whereas massive defection towards progressive 3rd parties will, at the very least, force the democrat honchos to sit up and listen, and may very well create the exact kind of "credible" party you are rooting for! Sometimes we are indeed all talk and no action; but the action we can already take is to stop falling for the "lesser of two evils" argument and vote for our convictions, not our fears.
In response to #7, who states that it would be great if the Greens became a credible party, which would "require the left to put the weed down and actually *do* something." The main thing we can and should *do* is actually start voting for the Greens and other 3rd parties who pay attention to our interests. Until we do that –until we pose a credible threat– the democrats will simply continue to ignore our voices; whereas massive defection towards progressive 3rd parties will, at the very least, force the democrat honchos to sit up and listen, and may very well create the exact kind of "credible" party you are rooting for! Sometimes we are indeed all talk and no action; but the action we can already take is to stop falling for the "lesser of two evils" argument and vote for our convictions, not our fears.
27
@23 Again Texas isn't quite the south. I remember after Hurricane Katrina they evacuated a bunch of people from southern Louisiana to east Texas. Many of the evacuees decided to stay in Texas because they liked the schools better there, which is kind of ironic because east Texas isn't generally well known for the high quality of its public education system.
28
Third parties are a disaster in the American system. They ALWAYS split your vote. A "progressive" third-party candidate EQUALS REPUBLICAN VICTORY.
It's crazy that people still don't get this, after seeing Nader and Perot destroy the left and right, respectively.
And for all of you pinheads who keep saying "derr, it doesn't matter, the Republicans and Democrats are the same, durr", please look up the names "Clarence Thomas" and "Sonia Sotomayor" and study them.
Y'all were so outraged yesterday about the 5-4 Supreme Court decision regarding the man who spent 18 years in prison for crimes the prosecutors knew he wasn't guilty of, and yet here you are today arguing that we should make that 6-3 or 7-2. THIS is the real reason Democrats are stupid.
It's crazy that people still don't get this, after seeing Nader and Perot destroy the left and right, respectively.
And for all of you pinheads who keep saying "derr, it doesn't matter, the Republicans and Democrats are the same, durr", please look up the names "Clarence Thomas" and "Sonia Sotomayor" and study them.
Y'all were so outraged yesterday about the 5-4 Supreme Court decision regarding the man who spent 18 years in prison for crimes the prosecutors knew he wasn't guilty of, and yet here you are today arguing that we should make that 6-3 or 7-2. THIS is the real reason Democrats are stupid.
29
One more thought, before I get back to work, conservatives are culturally conditioned to believe in a meritocracy ... which is totally fair and admirable. In reality, the powers that be and major players... a meritocracy is the LAST thing they want. It means that you have to be open to challenges and development, infrastructure, education (for all!), and to be honest, good hard innovative work. The south, doesn't really like good hard work. They value it in theory, they hate doing it in reality. It also means spending money on education and infrastructure, and be on the lookout for rising challengers coming out of their brutally repressed underclass.
They are VERY bitter about having federal intrusion come in and perchance give the people a true stake in society. The south, also, has never had a labor movement, which also sucks. It often makes labor discussions very difficult.
They are VERY bitter about having federal intrusion come in and perchance give the people a true stake in society. The south, also, has never had a labor movement, which also sucks. It often makes labor discussions very difficult.
30
The fucked-up thing is that it ISN'T really good politics: most of us will vote Dem. as the lesser of two evils, but being a Right-Center asshat isn't convincing anyone new to vote for him - this is exactly why the Tea idiots had such a strong showing in 2010. Fund social programs and tax the hell out of the rich, and poor voters will turn out in droves and deliver a landslide victory, like in 2008. That had nothing to do with swing voters and everything to do with an exciting, progressive candidate motivating high levels of voter participation. Left voters are in the majority - the Dems. should be trying to convince people who are struggling to make ends meet that the time-demand of voting for them is worth it, not pandering to FOX News viewers who think the Dems. are evil even when they're passing policy that the Reps. proposed.
Start spreading the word: write-in campaign for Feingold in the Dem. Presidential primary. He's not going to formally challenge Obama, so it needs to be write-in. Even if we can only get a few percentage points, it will send a message to President Obummer. I hope. Spread the word!
@5: I agree completely.
@26: Yup.
@28: Need progressive candidates in primaries, not the general election.
Start spreading the word: write-in campaign for Feingold in the Dem. Presidential primary. He's not going to formally challenge Obama, so it needs to be write-in. Even if we can only get a few percentage points, it will send a message to President Obummer. I hope. Spread the word!
@5: I agree completely.
@26: Yup.
@28: Need progressive candidates in primaries, not the general election.
31
@28 I think the Dems and Republicans are doing a good job of destroying the left and right all on their own. Has their ever been a point where "respectable" political debate was more ridiculously skewed, and/or just plain ridiculous?
Look, your point is obvious: voting third party runs the risk of "giving" the election to a Republican... therefore you should vote for someone you can barely stand, and not someone you genuinely believe in, due to this possibility (very democratic, that).
If that logic works for you, fine. Seriously! (That's the great thing about democracy; we can all vote the way we want.) As for me, I look at Obama and see someone who's *continuing* the endless wars in the middle east, *continuing* to dismantle the last vestiges of our civil liberties, *continuing* to throw money at Wall Street while *continuing* to cut social services for working people in the name of "fiscal responsibility." What's the difference between the 2 parties, again? I know, I know, know, you're going to list all the marginal democratic "victories" and the even greater atrocities the republicans lie in wait to offer. Like I said, it's a choice between "shitty" and "shittier." We can keep playing that game -cycling between shit, and shit– while our country goes to hell, or we can f***ing do something about it. And that "something" will have to break the stranglehold of the two party elites and their mutual enslavement to big ole corporations.
I'm open to suggestions.
Look, your point is obvious: voting third party runs the risk of "giving" the election to a Republican... therefore you should vote for someone you can barely stand, and not someone you genuinely believe in, due to this possibility (very democratic, that).
If that logic works for you, fine. Seriously! (That's the great thing about democracy; we can all vote the way we want.) As for me, I look at Obama and see someone who's *continuing* the endless wars in the middle east, *continuing* to dismantle the last vestiges of our civil liberties, *continuing* to throw money at Wall Street while *continuing* to cut social services for working people in the name of "fiscal responsibility." What's the difference between the 2 parties, again? I know, I know, know, you're going to list all the marginal democratic "victories" and the even greater atrocities the republicans lie in wait to offer. Like I said, it's a choice between "shitty" and "shittier." We can keep playing that game -cycling between shit, and shit– while our country goes to hell, or we can f***ing do something about it. And that "something" will have to break the stranglehold of the two party elites and their mutual enslavement to big ole corporations.
I'm open to suggestions.
32
@28 So we're totally screwed then.
If we don't convince Democratic elected officials to pursue a progressive agenda we're looking at a future of food riots, mass death from lack of health care, and the end of an educated middle class. I'm not being dramatic because it's already happening.
The only way to convince Democrats to pursue a sane agenda is to convince them that their election depends on them acting in the interest of their country by being progressive. What is a way to convince them that doesn't involve them losing an election or two?
I just don't know if getting a few Supreme Court Justices is worth the price we pay for getting passive center-right Democrats elected when they don't do anything to keep this country from being utterly destroyed.
If we don't convince Democratic elected officials to pursue a progressive agenda we're looking at a future of food riots, mass death from lack of health care, and the end of an educated middle class. I'm not being dramatic because it's already happening.
The only way to convince Democrats to pursue a sane agenda is to convince them that their election depends on them acting in the interest of their country by being progressive. What is a way to convince them that doesn't involve them losing an election or two?
I just don't know if getting a few Supreme Court Justices is worth the price we pay for getting passive center-right Democrats elected when they don't do anything to keep this country from being utterly destroyed.
33
I'm confused. I thought we elected Barack Obama last time around, but the dude in the Oval Office is doing an absolutely *dead-on* impression of Neville Chamberlain.
35
Despite the wish of Americans in general to "be in the know" and not surprised, Obama's bait and switch is in fact a remarkable transition. That's why you have so many people remarking on it. However, in support of the "you shouldn't be surprised" quadrant, being a candidate is very different than being a president. The office and the responsibility and the legion of advisers really make it impossible not to be left of center. Interesting that it doesn't work the other way...
In any case, I think the real issue is with the Democratic party itself. Universally chicken shit, gutless, hand-wringing, hesitant and maddening.
As for Clinton's late breaking moves after the Repubs hung themselves with their own reliable brand of wing nut stupidity, the difference this time is that the economy is so broken that far more people are desperate and likely will never see a middle class income again. This rightfully makes people angry. In a country where I am stunned every day at what people do not know, it also makes sense that people do not know what/who is responsible for their standard of living demise. In steps in the tea party financiers to give them a nice, packaged explanation. Since I see no democrats in office anywhere that have any sort of warrior mentality, they are always on the defensive and responding to the accusations/conversation as it is defined by the right of the right. Not a single one of them, from the President on down to our state legislature, has the capacity to re-define the terms of the conversation. Clinton could do that (but of course, later, was his own worst enemy).
We're a simplistic, stupid society that is easily swayed by an effective consumerist message. In fact, the moneyed interests have our number as to what works. And the biggest enemy of all politicians is an educated voting populace. Educated voters aren't easily snowed. If people are uneducated, then they will not be able to tell fact from fiction, reasonable versus hyperbole, crooks from heroes, good from evil.
What is interesting in this clearly non-celebratory budget cut, is that even John Boehner is held hostage by the wing nuts funded by rich wing nuts.
As for the Bush tax cuts. Removing them would result in 60 Billion in revenue, so yes, tax increases would replace the cuts. But if we cut the poor and the middle class as well, then we create a less civil society that is frightened. The rich see frightened hungry people as more willing to put up with inhumane treatment and a society that favors their interests. Until the tea party believers and the left finally get it that this is a collective war against all of us, there is no change coming.
More...
In any case, I think the real issue is with the Democratic party itself. Universally chicken shit, gutless, hand-wringing, hesitant and maddening.
As for Clinton's late breaking moves after the Repubs hung themselves with their own reliable brand of wing nut stupidity, the difference this time is that the economy is so broken that far more people are desperate and likely will never see a middle class income again. This rightfully makes people angry. In a country where I am stunned every day at what people do not know, it also makes sense that people do not know what/who is responsible for their standard of living demise. In steps in the tea party financiers to give them a nice, packaged explanation. Since I see no democrats in office anywhere that have any sort of warrior mentality, they are always on the defensive and responding to the accusations/conversation as it is defined by the right of the right. Not a single one of them, from the President on down to our state legislature, has the capacity to re-define the terms of the conversation. Clinton could do that (but of course, later, was his own worst enemy).
We're a simplistic, stupid society that is easily swayed by an effective consumerist message. In fact, the moneyed interests have our number as to what works. And the biggest enemy of all politicians is an educated voting populace. Educated voters aren't easily snowed. If people are uneducated, then they will not be able to tell fact from fiction, reasonable versus hyperbole, crooks from heroes, good from evil.
What is interesting in this clearly non-celebratory budget cut, is that even John Boehner is held hostage by the wing nuts funded by rich wing nuts.
As for the Bush tax cuts. Removing them would result in 60 Billion in revenue, so yes, tax increases would replace the cuts. But if we cut the poor and the middle class as well, then we create a less civil society that is frightened. The rich see frightened hungry people as more willing to put up with inhumane treatment and a society that favors their interests. Until the tea party believers and the left finally get it that this is a collective war against all of us, there is no change coming.
36
My solution is simple, if money talks and B.S. walks ... the long term solution is that the progressive states fix their issues, economies, etc. etc. and starting making money, and generating wealth and technologies. This will not happen if we completely and totally pander to large corporate interests, but ultimately developing small and medium business as well as emerging technologies will hopefully create our own jobs and recreate the middle class. Only when the middle classes start to generate wealth, do the big money players want to come along for the ride (see 90's). This will also solve our budget crisis by giving Americans real wages for tax revenue.
It's a culture war, and it will be won by the player who has the best standard of living. Changes will not be won by convincing the voters of a certain ideology. Changes will happen, though hard work earning income, educating our children, and having a good life. If we regroup keep working, having sex, disposable income, and keeping our children off food stamps, I think that will help the progressive cause. In some respects, I think they should just GIVE these states their rights and watch their standards of living circle around the toilet bowl as they just slip into more despotism. It will enable the states to take care of their social safety nets and education as well ...
It's just a thought, to bad it's not a short term solution.
It's a culture war, and it will be won by the player who has the best standard of living. Changes will not be won by convincing the voters of a certain ideology. Changes will happen, though hard work earning income, educating our children, and having a good life. If we regroup keep working, having sex, disposable income, and keeping our children off food stamps, I think that will help the progressive cause. In some respects, I think they should just GIVE these states their rights and watch their standards of living circle around the toilet bowl as they just slip into more despotism. It will enable the states to take care of their social safety nets and education as well ...
It's just a thought, to bad it's not a short term solution.
37
Can we get some proportional government up in here? You know, so people who vote for someone other than the winner get a voice in government too.
Otherwise, maybe we should start really trying to elect progressive third party candidates at the local level where populations can agree on what they want, and for now continue to compromise on Dems at the national level.
Otherwise, maybe we should start really trying to elect progressive third party candidates at the local level where populations can agree on what they want, and for now continue to compromise on Dems at the national level.
38
This is why we need a real third party in this country. The public is getting kicked by BOTH democrats and republicans. For the voter the choice is: "who is kicking me less?"
Sorry I don't enable bullies.
Sorry I don't enable bullies.
39
What @5 said. Me, I will not vote for Obama in '12. I won't even vote for hopelessly lazy McDermott anymore. 3rd party for me from now on.
40
Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, the US electoral system seems rigged to maintain the political duopoly going on. Not just the fact that all the major debates are set up with collusion by the duopoly to exclude all 3rd parties, but the lack of a runoff system is a big weakness. The electoral college needs to go away too.
A 3rd party winning is not unprecedented in American history, but it hasn't happened since the current age of monolithic million dollar politics.
Where I live a lot of the time, in Ireland, we just had an election here. Just like in Britain, an election gets called, campaigning lasts 3 weeks, then it's over. The fact that we're talking about November 2012 now makes me want to vomit. (Ireland also has proportional representation, and there are usually 4 or 5 parties represented in parliament)
A 3rd party winning is not unprecedented in American history, but it hasn't happened since the current age of monolithic million dollar politics.
Where I live a lot of the time, in Ireland, we just had an election here. Just like in Britain, an election gets called, campaigning lasts 3 weeks, then it's over. The fact that we're talking about November 2012 now makes me want to vomit. (Ireland also has proportional representation, and there are usually 4 or 5 parties represented in parliament)
41
@31, move. Seriously. Go find your progressive liberal paradise and live there. It's never going to happen here.
@38, voting third-party IS enabling bullies. If Ralph Nader had been run over by a bus in October 2000 Alito and Roberts wouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
@38, voting third-party IS enabling bullies. If Ralph Nader had been run over by a bus in October 2000 Alito and Roberts wouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
42
@5, 37, 38, 39, every muldoon screeching for a third party
You do realize how democracy works, right? Compromise is an essential ingrediant- you simply can't govern in absolute fidelity to any ideological position. I'm sorry if Obama having to, you know, govern, is a bit of a disappointment. Ask yourself, though: hasn't his instinct towards sacrificing short term, base-emboldening gestures for advancing a broad agenda yielded dramatic results? I know it's been a while, but doesn't health care and consumer protection reform count for something? Do you have any contemporary examples of a more successful progressive executive in this country? Can we please be realistic about what's achievable given an aging electorate watching impotently as America declines? Obama has hitherto been more effective at achieving progressive policy goals than any President since Johnson, and he's done it without sacrificing his long-term viability as a candidate for a second term. Obama's success, going all the way back to the 2008 campaign, is derived in part from his ability to rise above the helter-skelter of the particular moment and news cycle. He plays the long game, which is why I trust him more than the pundits who demand ideological purity.
But hey, go ahead, throw your vote away on a third party candidate. That worked great in 2000. Just remember you give up any and all rights to complain when the Bachmann Administration shutters the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History for a month while they install an animatronic Jesus to give high fives to children on their way out of the new Garden of Eden wing.
You do realize how democracy works, right? Compromise is an essential ingrediant- you simply can't govern in absolute fidelity to any ideological position. I'm sorry if Obama having to, you know, govern, is a bit of a disappointment. Ask yourself, though: hasn't his instinct towards sacrificing short term, base-emboldening gestures for advancing a broad agenda yielded dramatic results? I know it's been a while, but doesn't health care and consumer protection reform count for something? Do you have any contemporary examples of a more successful progressive executive in this country? Can we please be realistic about what's achievable given an aging electorate watching impotently as America declines? Obama has hitherto been more effective at achieving progressive policy goals than any President since Johnson, and he's done it without sacrificing his long-term viability as a candidate for a second term. Obama's success, going all the way back to the 2008 campaign, is derived in part from his ability to rise above the helter-skelter of the particular moment and news cycle. He plays the long game, which is why I trust him more than the pundits who demand ideological purity.
But hey, go ahead, throw your vote away on a third party candidate. That worked great in 2000. Just remember you give up any and all rights to complain when the Bachmann Administration shutters the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History for a month while they install an animatronic Jesus to give high fives to children on their way out of the new Garden of Eden wing.
43
From the article:
"Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders"
What, the GOP hasn't done *exactly the same thing?!?!?* That the GOP base doesn't rabidly hate the Democrats so badly that they're all foaming at the mouth at the very mention of "liberal" anything?
"Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders"
What, the GOP hasn't done *exactly the same thing?!?!?* That the GOP base doesn't rabidly hate the Democrats so badly that they're all foaming at the mouth at the very mention of "liberal" anything?
44
@43 The usual pattern in American politics is to suck-up to your base in the primaries, hold them at arms length during the general election, and sell them out when you take office. Republicans and democrats both do it. How do you think all the racist hicks who helped elect George W felt when he came out in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens?
45
@42: You talk about compromise and concession as a part of governance, ideally you're right. Unfortunately, of the two parties, only one concedes anything. The end result of that is not democracy.
The healthcare bill was a cop-out, ("Compromise" in this case was abandoning a national healthcare service or a more conservative Public Option before debate even began, and what we're left with is Bob Dole's healthcare plan being called "communism") even when it is fully implemented, the USA will have the least efficient and least egalitarian healthcare system of any industrialized nation. There are many other categories where the USA fits that description in addition to healthcare. The lone exception is our stockpile of cruise missiles. The right-wing ideas will only hasten that slide you mentioned into decline.
When the GOP is in power they ram their policies through and shout down all opposition. As unpleasant as that is to endure from the other side, it garners results. Someday, someone needs to take that attitude with the intent of saving the country, rather than destroying it. Not that I have faith it'll happen.
As for third parties, I agree with you, like I said above. That's why we need a runoff election system, a major overhaul of how elections in America work. Unfortunately asking the careerist politicians who feed off the USA's political trough to make the trough tougher to feed from is never going to happen.
The healthcare bill was a cop-out, ("Compromise" in this case was abandoning a national healthcare service or a more conservative Public Option before debate even began, and what we're left with is Bob Dole's healthcare plan being called "communism") even when it is fully implemented, the USA will have the least efficient and least egalitarian healthcare system of any industrialized nation. There are many other categories where the USA fits that description in addition to healthcare. The lone exception is our stockpile of cruise missiles. The right-wing ideas will only hasten that slide you mentioned into decline.
When the GOP is in power they ram their policies through and shout down all opposition. As unpleasant as that is to endure from the other side, it garners results. Someday, someone needs to take that attitude with the intent of saving the country, rather than destroying it. Not that I have faith it'll happen.
As for third parties, I agree with you, like I said above. That's why we need a runoff election system, a major overhaul of how elections in America work. Unfortunately asking the careerist politicians who feed off the USA's political trough to make the trough tougher to feed from is never going to happen.
46
@20 because the original Republican demand was for $32 billion. Then the House republicans kicked and screamed and put up a shitfest and demanded $60 billion, and in the end it was a $37 billion cut. So the Reps made out ahead by $5 billion, which just chaps me.
However, the solution DOES NOT LIE IN THE ELECTED PRESIDENT PER SE! (Although a Dem president makes it easier.). THE CRITICAL THING IS A GOOD NUMBER OF GRASS ROOTS elected progressive or Democrat. That's what the religious right did, beginning in the 80's. We can work our way up the grassroots with a progressive meme, too. If we start treating city, county, and state level politicians with as much import as we do federal, if we start paying more attention to Representatives and Senators than we do the Presidency, we'd get much more done.
Focus at the top leads us into precisely the quandary outlined by most of the folks Dan quoted.
However, the solution DOES NOT LIE IN THE ELECTED PRESIDENT PER SE! (Although a Dem president makes it easier.). THE CRITICAL THING IS A GOOD NUMBER OF GRASS ROOTS elected progressive or Democrat. That's what the religious right did, beginning in the 80's. We can work our way up the grassroots with a progressive meme, too. If we start treating city, county, and state level politicians with as much import as we do federal, if we start paying more attention to Representatives and Senators than we do the Presidency, we'd get much more done.
Focus at the top leads us into precisely the quandary outlined by most of the folks Dan quoted.
47
@41 Fuck I'm sick of your status quo loving political "realism" Fnarf. Nader lost the election for Gore? Really? Cuz there were going to be 3rd party candidates regardless of your dream of a permanent two-party hegemony that outlaws 3rd parties so the pathetic Dems have a slightly better chance. People who vote 3rd party, were going vote 3rd Party. The Supreme Court lost Gore the election, Gore lost Gore the election.
And the Supreme Court is not the end all be all of political decisions in our society when we have a Democratic president who turns a blind eye to the loud and proud confessions of war crimes by the previous administration, who institutionalizes PERMANENT DETENTION WITH OUT TRIAL, who expands our insane billion year war in Afghanistan, who orders the assassination of US citizens with out trial, who won't fight for a public option, who won't fight for real Wall Street reform after the worst recession in almost a hundred years was caused by his very own benefactors, who cuts taxes on the rich and cuts spending for the poor in the middle of that recession. Fuck this, Fnarf. How the fuck is this good enough? I know it's the situation we have, I know he's the best we can get, but that fact commands us to CHANGE THE FUCKING SYSTEM, not throw up our hands and vote D. Your realism will see our country destroyed.
And the Supreme Court is not the end all be all of political decisions in our society when we have a Democratic president who turns a blind eye to the loud and proud confessions of war crimes by the previous administration, who institutionalizes PERMANENT DETENTION WITH OUT TRIAL, who expands our insane billion year war in Afghanistan, who orders the assassination of US citizens with out trial, who won't fight for a public option, who won't fight for real Wall Street reform after the worst recession in almost a hundred years was caused by his very own benefactors, who cuts taxes on the rich and cuts spending for the poor in the middle of that recession. Fuck this, Fnarf. How the fuck is this good enough? I know it's the situation we have, I know he's the best we can get, but that fact commands us to CHANGE THE FUCKING SYSTEM, not throw up our hands and vote D. Your realism will see our country destroyed.
48
@47, OuterCow: "How the fuck is this good enough? I know it's the situation we have, I know he's the best we can get, but that fact commands us to CHANGE THE FUCKING SYSTEM, not throw up our hands and vote D."
I won't disagree with Fnarf on Nader, but damn it if you're not right on with that. Well said.
I won't disagree with Fnarf on Nader, but damn it if you're not right on with that. Well said.
49
A side point: Why is it that just about every time I see somebody who should know better explaining either how it "doesn't matter" who you vote for or saying they're voting for a Republican even though they disagree with 9/10ths of the Republican platform, they inevitably back up this stupidity with a "South Park" quote?
50
It would be much easier to have a more representative democracy with third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties if we had proportional representation. Why does no one take that seriously in the US?
52
@47: Right fucking on, Outer Cow.
Corporations have destroyed the American political experiment. You have a choice now between the abusive, fear-driven Republicans, or the co-dependent, fear-driven Democrats. In other words, the corporate whores or the racist corporate whores. Since the people with the ability to change the system are the same people who benefit from it staying the way it is, there aren't going to be any major changes. Third parties are a threat and will not be tolerated. Proportional representation, instant runoff voting, public election financing, not going to happen. What we have now is a system of institutionalized bribery, and that's not going to change without riots and murder, probably, and maybe not even then.
Obama is a classic case of the abused outsider who desperately wants approval from an establishment who will never give it to him. Anyone who saw his FISA vote knew what was coming. And as much as the establishment sneers at him, they love him too, because while they'll never fully accept him, he managed to completely devalue the words "Hope" and "Change". The next time a candidate comes along and promises those things, how likely do you think it is that anyone will believe them? I guess only people who aren't alive now, or aren't old enough to pay attention.
Corporations have destroyed the American political experiment. You have a choice now between the abusive, fear-driven Republicans, or the co-dependent, fear-driven Democrats. In other words, the corporate whores or the racist corporate whores. Since the people with the ability to change the system are the same people who benefit from it staying the way it is, there aren't going to be any major changes. Third parties are a threat and will not be tolerated. Proportional representation, instant runoff voting, public election financing, not going to happen. What we have now is a system of institutionalized bribery, and that's not going to change without riots and murder, probably, and maybe not even then.
Obama is a classic case of the abused outsider who desperately wants approval from an establishment who will never give it to him. Anyone who saw his FISA vote knew what was coming. And as much as the establishment sneers at him, they love him too, because while they'll never fully accept him, he managed to completely devalue the words "Hope" and "Change". The next time a candidate comes along and promises those things, how likely do you think it is that anyone will believe them? I guess only people who aren't alive now, or aren't old enough to pay attention.
53
We need to start primarying the douchetards. They think they need to water down their positions on the issues to appeal to a center that doesn't exist. Nonpartisan voters vote based on the performance of the economy, not on the issues. It's only partisans who care about the issues, and you can only belong to one party.
The solution is to do everything and anything necessary to secure and maintain full employment while giving your base what it wants on the issues (as long as it doesn't conflict with getting full employment.) If you can do that, and maintain it long term, you will get a permanent Congressional majority.
The Republicans understand part of this, but they have a little problem: some of the demands of their base (tax cuts for the rich, union busting, financial deregulation, free markets, monetary policy aimed entirely at controlling inflation) are not consistent with full employment. therefore periods of Republican rule are prone to economic meltdowns that push them out of power, like in 1992 and 2008.
Sadly, Democrats failed to take proper advantage of those opportunities. We keep conceding too much to them, choosing "electable centrists" like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to run for the presidency, playing it safe. What we ought to do, next time one of these golden opportunities arises - and it's not a question of whether such an opportunity will come again, but when - we need to elect a fire-breathing, unapologetic Leftist to carry our party standard, someone who will do everything necessary to permanently discredit the Republican model of governance by bringing us to prosperity, advancing the desires of the base, and explicitly asserting the rightness of our ideas and the wrongness of theirs. Once we have undeniable results, and have ensured that they cannot be ignored, the conventional wisdom will change, and good governance will return to America - permanently.
More...
The solution is to do everything and anything necessary to secure and maintain full employment while giving your base what it wants on the issues (as long as it doesn't conflict with getting full employment.) If you can do that, and maintain it long term, you will get a permanent Congressional majority.
The Republicans understand part of this, but they have a little problem: some of the demands of their base (tax cuts for the rich, union busting, financial deregulation, free markets, monetary policy aimed entirely at controlling inflation) are not consistent with full employment. therefore periods of Republican rule are prone to economic meltdowns that push them out of power, like in 1992 and 2008.
Sadly, Democrats failed to take proper advantage of those opportunities. We keep conceding too much to them, choosing "electable centrists" like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to run for the presidency, playing it safe. What we ought to do, next time one of these golden opportunities arises - and it's not a question of whether such an opportunity will come again, but when - we need to elect a fire-breathing, unapologetic Leftist to carry our party standard, someone who will do everything necessary to permanently discredit the Republican model of governance by bringing us to prosperity, advancing the desires of the base, and explicitly asserting the rightness of our ideas and the wrongness of theirs. Once we have undeniable results, and have ensured that they cannot be ignored, the conventional wisdom will change, and good governance will return to America - permanently.
54
@53, east coaster: "we need to elect a fire-breathing, unapologetic Leftist to carry our party standard, someone who will do everything necessary to permanently discredit the Republican model of governance by bringing us to prosperity, advancing the desires of the base, and explicitly asserting the rightness of our ideas and the wrongness of theirs. Once we have undeniable results, and have ensured that they cannot be ignored, the conventional wisdom will change, and good governance will return to America - permanently."
I share your beautiful dream.
I share your beautiful dream.
55
@54 I don't think an unapologetic leftist would bring us much prosperity. The social democracies of Europe tolerate unemployment rates 2-3 times higher than here and anemic economic growth. Democratic socialism may have its advantages but prosperity isn't one of them.
56
@ 55, I'm not laying any bets on the likelihood of such a candidate coming along any time soon, but damn, it sure would be nice, wouldn't it?
57
@55: which is why Germany is currently in a state of economic growth unparalleled since reunification?
58
The Modern offers just two models of intellectual honesty: Kurt Vonnegut or Bukowski. Either it's the grace of the damned to live in good humor, or glower and gnash. Get while the gettin's good I say, and keep those cyanide capsules packed. Radiation, influenza, economic collapse, food riots - did you really want to live that long anyways?
59
Save yourselves - become as independent from government-sponsored resources as possible without becoming a militia nutter.
Together, you and the community members around you can ween yourselves off of the services provided by an increasingly shaky government.
Yes, please vote because it does matter.
No, the elected higher-ups are not going to save the day, regardless of what party flag they fly.
Together, you and the community members around you can ween yourselves off of the services provided by an increasingly shaky government.
Yes, please vote because it does matter.
No, the elected higher-ups are not going to save the day, regardless of what party flag they fly.
60
@57, what I love about Germany is that WE DESIGNED THEIR POLTICAL SYSTEM after WWII. Damn. I want Germany's setup. I take proportional/parliamentary systems very seriously, but TPTB don't want that changed, they've got it all set up how to game our current one and so will block any such change.
Concurrent with grassroots election of progressive candidates needs to be the effort to bring down the corporatocracy that has effectively killed both dominant political parties in this country, suborning both to their demands.
Concurrent with grassroots election of progressive candidates needs to be the effort to bring down the corporatocracy that has effectively killed both dominant political parties in this country, suborning both to their demands.
61
@55 Yeah, I was thinking about Germany too because I am pretty sure their social safety net is a hell of a lot better than here--so unemployment doesn't necessarily mean you can't see a doctor or go through what the real poor go through here.
Not to mention those social democracies actually give a shit if they see austerity and riot. Not so here because we've got bunch of idiotic defeatists saying "bend over and take it for the D-team, you worthless Naderite. Don't you know how governing works in Poltical Reality Land? Obama has to be a Republican."
Not to mention those social democracies actually give a shit if they see austerity and riot. Not so here because we've got bunch of idiotic defeatists saying "bend over and take it for the D-team, you worthless Naderite. Don't you know how governing works in Poltical Reality Land? Obama has to be a Republican."
62
The only way independents can get some sense of reasonable government is to split it right down the middle. One Party (Dems) in the white house and One party (Republicans) in Congress/Senate. The 8 years of consolidated rule (6 for Bush, 2 for Obama) did nothing but fleece the People.
A single party has no friction to stop the bad ideas and corruption that will flourish under a single party.
Obama had a chance to change the system. He had great popular support but at the end he sold out to the Corporations and Special interest groups that rule the country. It is sad but not unexpected.
A single party has no friction to stop the bad ideas and corruption that will flourish under a single party.
Obama had a chance to change the system. He had great popular support but at the end he sold out to the Corporations and Special interest groups that rule the country. It is sad but not unexpected.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (62) RSS