The Gallup survey group reports this month that there is a significant gap in political participation between black and white America, as well as between younger and older citizens. Disturbingly, this divide has grown in the last two years, despite the severity of the economic crisis and the growth of suffering among middle America and the poor. This disparity in participation between old and young, black and white, carries with it major implications for democratic representation.
Minority and youthful voters saw major increases in turnout in the historic 2008 election in which one of the youngest, and the first African American president in history, was elected. Voting among these groups however has now dropped to previously apathetic levels. Whereas whites and blacks were just as likely to say they thought about the 2008 election either “some” or “a lot,” the gap between the groups is now 17 percentage points (45% v. 25%) favoring whites. The current level of attentiveness represents an all time low for the last 15 years for blacks, but also for whites.
While the difference between voting for those between 18 and 29 and those over 30 was relatively small for 2008, that gap grew significantly by 2010. The gap went from 12 percentage points (favoring older Americans) in 2008 to 23 percentage points this year. Electoral attention is now at a near 15 year low for the 18-29 age group, and for those over 30 (both groups saw lower attention in only one year: 2004).
The growing de-politicization among traditionally marginalized groups (the young and minorities) is disturbing in that it raises serious questions about public attitudes going into the 2008 election and today. There was much self-congratulation among those on the left and among members of disadvantaged demographic groups that the election of Barack Obama constituted a major step toward achieving racial harmony, in fixing an economy in the toilet, and in dealing with the problems left behind from the Bush administration.
Few of these expectations appear to have been warranted in light of Obama’s hawkish escalation of the war in Afghanistan, his abandonment of progressive policy reforms focusing in terms of promoting Wall Street regulation and breaking up banks that are “too big to fail,” and considering the Democratic Party’s tepid response to conservative domestic dogmas regarding the “need” for continued tax cuts for the rich and the “necessity” of cutting social welfare programs such as Social Security.
What the recent Gallup figures demonstrate is the extraordinary naiveté that followed the accompanied the 2008 elections. Voters thought they could ensure a new era of “hope” and “change” simply by voting a fresh face into the highest office in the land and returning the Democrats to majority status. This type of reasoning represents identity politics at its worst, and it is the predictable effect of elections that are defined by individual personalities, rather than by real issues. Identity-politics voting does not bring about democratic change, and assumptions that it will are unwarranted. Progressive change never comes from the top down, but from the pressure of grassroots protestors and activism demanding a better world. If “the left” understood this basic point, they would have been busy building social movements over the last two years, rather than sitting back and waiting for Obama to save them.
Those hoping for progressive change this fall are in for a rude awakening. The Pew Research Center chronicles what will likely be successful efforts to organize Republican supporters and get them to turnout for the 2010 midterms. The organization reported in August 2010 in anticipation of the November elections that self-described Republicans were “more engaged in the coming election and more inclined to say they are certain to vote than are Democrats.” Whereas 56 percent of Republicans as of June 2010 were “enthusiastic about voting” in the fall, the number fell to 42 percent for Democrats and Independents. This was the largest gap between partisans seen in 16 years. Additionally, 64 percent of Republicans explained that they were closely following campaign news, compared to 50 percent of Democrats. Finally, 77 percent of Republican voters said they were “absolutely certain to vote,” as compared to 65 percent of Democratic voters
The ascendancy of the Republican right in this election will further seal the deal in preventing reforms on Wall Street or any successful efforts to reduce poverty through increased welfare spending or renewed stimulus. Republicans (and increasingly most Democrats) don’t care about economic recovery. They are concerned first and foremost with returning profitability to Wall Street, and that goal was already achieved this year, leaving little incentive to push for broader economic recovery. There is a very real chance that the economy will further decline over the next year, in light of the increasing intransigence of the Democratic Party, as seen in its opposition to further stimulus spending, and the staunch opposition of Republicans to any increase in federal taxation that could be used to help states fill their budget gaps (and stave off mass firings). As a result, the road to progressive change may be filled with much hardship in the next few years, as the economy continues to sputter along and more Americans are thrown out of work. The public, it seems, must continually be reminded that real democratic change is never handed down from above, but has to be fought for through long struggle and sacrifice.
Anthony DiMaggio is the editor of media-ocracy (www.media-ocracy.com), a daily online magazine devoted to the study of media, public opinion, and current events. He has taught U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University and North Central College, and is the author of When Media Goes to War (2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008). He can be reached at: mediaocracy@gmail.com



81 Comments




The Dems are the ones in for a rude awakening this fall. The LEFT has understood for quite awhile that the ax was coming. It should have been clear to all. The real left has moved on.
Very well done, great piece, recommended.
But reality is even more bleak than what the following implies:
The unfortunate reality is that it matters very little whether the Republicans storm back into a majority in Congress. We’ve seen from Obama ineffectual and mostly neoliberal half-measures to battle unemployment, but mostly subservience to the various money power blocs that are any modern mainstream President’s main constituencies. We will see more of that whether or not the President loses or wins this November.
Any solution to the present horrible anti-populist, pro-rich political situation has to uproot the money power (and don’t forget it owns the mass media too) that runs our politics, elections and politicians. For that, we’d need a real helluva lot of the following, more than I’ve ever seen, and the visions of a better world would have to be transformed into laws passed, somehow, by a Congress ‘elected’ by money:
Agreed. It wasn’t identity politics that got Obama elected. The Democrats got big majorities in both Houses as well. These wins were predicated on the notion that Obama and the Democrats would, as they promised, reject the Bush agenda and push for the most part a traditional Democratic one. In fact, they embraced en masse Bush’s hard right extremism. We progressives have been warning them about the costs of this for an age. Obama and the Democrats rejected us and barreled ahead with their Bush inspired agenda.
In doing so, they have taught us one valuable lesson and that is that fights between Democrats and Republicans are almost all kabuki. When push comes to shove, we get the same kleptocratic corporatist result from both parties.
The writer of this post is revising his history. He is saying that Obama and the Democrats never really promised what they promised and that it is somehow the fault of voters to believe that they ever had. I actually agree with the poster that we need much stronger grassroots organizing, but the truth is if we have such efforts, why do we even need the Democrats anymore? Why should we support a party that has shown when it controls the Presidency and has the largest majorities in Congress in 80 years, it not only won’t support our values and stand with us on the issues but will be actively hostile to them? As you say, Twain, we have moved on from this. The poster clearly has not.
Great read and thanks Anthony. Rcc’d.
And GREAT comments 1-3 up above there . . . anything Anthony might have left out was well covered by you three!
The plight of the middle class and poor is bad, going to get worse with or without Dems in power and the system’s unsustainable. It has to crash.
This deterioration you speak of represents the only hope that enough people will get kicked in the teeth and open their ignorant eyes and start to understand who the enemy is and how it screws them ruthlessly. That’s what it took before. The next Roosevelt needs to step forward. Elizabeth Warren?
The Left in for a rude awakening we were predicting this before the Dems lost Ted’s senate seat we have been talking third party even before that.
Given the number of blue dogs in swing districts in trouble blue dogs Obama screwed us over to help well it looks like that help is killing them.
If anything after this election the blue dogs get a rude awakening.
2008 was not everybody jumping on the Obama bandwagon and thinking change would come easily. The majority of votes Obama got came from people who had been involved for a very long time. People have been active and mobilized for many election cycles. When Gore gave up with a whimper we were back again in the mid-terms and then again for Kerry. ( I don’t know a single person who was excited about Kerry) Don’t forget that there are many unanswered questions as to whether Bush ever won an election. In 2006 we took back the House only to have the Democrats do nothing. Not only did they do nothing they openly stated they would do nothing. At 51 years old I have helped knock doors (which sucks) and worked phone banks in past elections. Obama was the culmination of many years of hard work to take back the system. Huge amounts of effort created the wave he rode. (I give him little credit, my dog would have given McCain a good run). The young people I know are not angry because Obama didn’t get them all a pony. They are much more realistic than that. They see Obama as representative of a system that does not represent them in any way. Some friends of mine who are very large Democratic supporters (lots of cash) were shocked this summer at a party when they realized how cynical their children were about voting again. I doubt they would ever vote Republican but they are very likely not to vote.
President Obama, who I believe received more corporate cash than any other presidential candidate in history, is doing exactly what he was suppose to do. He was to make sure that the sweeping generational change that came with FDR and then again with Reagan did not happen. With some of the worst crisis we have seen as a country in a century we have really changed nothing in response.
After this election even if we keep both majorities in the House and Senate its the blue dogs that will be weakened more.
Its the blue dogs who will have to face that cutting Social Security will be as effective as Obama’s much to small job stimulus, totally inactive plan to save homeowners their houses and crappy healthcare plan.
The blue dogs can join with the GOP to pass cutting Social Security but thats a death mark we will get them…and the GOP too.
Very nice post.
The GOP calls it identity politics because they want to believe that I was and most of the Left was for anyone who would End the Wars, give us National Healthcare and who we thought could win.
Look at how fast Hilary’s support dried up when she waffled on those issues despite her huge early lead in fund raising. Cash can’t buy you elections when the voters are paying attention and after 8 years of Bush we were all paying attention.
Good read.
One comment, though.
Voters thought they could ensure a new era of “hope” and “change” because that’s what they were promised, over and over and over again, throughout the campaign.
Great time for Rahm to move on. Rahm’s cooked this President. Rahm’s gonna throw him under the bus, and go screw up Chicago.
If you want voters to vote give them what they want what they elected you for Obama’s popularity dropped after healthcare after it became apparent people would keep losing their homes as the banks got bailed out as it became clear there were no jobs.
We gave Obama a House and Senate Majority he just lacked the stones to fight for his campaign promises so don’t expect us to fight for him.
Its the GOP who practice identity politics, he’s Black, a Muslim, he wasn’t born here.
Us we have always argued about Obama not fulfilling his campaign promises in other words Obama lied about supporting our ideas.
Obama lacks the Stones to stand up to the GOP.
Losing the majority in the House or Senate doesn’t really matter, the Democrats haven’t been using it. Aside from the fake scandals reality TV we’ll be facing, nothing much will change when it comes to legislation.
What is a travesty of party politics, however, is that the enthusiasm gap is going to hurt the turnout for state races. And this is a census year, so not having strong Democratic representation in the state levels is going to hurt redistricting efforts. Instead of undoing gerrymandering we could see a lot more of it.
The Federal Government has abandoned America. The states are more important than ever, and giving them over to republicans is going to make a bad economy even worse.
After the election even if the GOP fails to gain a single seat a few Tea Baggers will be elected and if Obama could not work with the Republicans before well the Tea Baggers hate everything he stands for.
Blue Dog compromise strategy to get laws passed did not work so well before it will work less after the election.
By compromising his principles Obama did not get stuff passed he made himself look weak. Emotional Choice Voters picked up on that and like sharks who smell blood they have gone into a frenzy.
Thanks to the Tea Baggers yelling about Immigration I think Hispanic voters will vote at high levels. I expect the GOP to try and steal several state elections there are already rumors about Texas.
Obama ironically thinks he’s done great for some reason? The bitterness coming from the WH and expressed by Rahm and Gibbs and others is honest. They don’t get it. They really don’t. My guess is when the Dims lose Congress this Nov. Obama will turn hard right and pretty much act as a Goper president as did Clinton after losing Congress in 94.’ one big difference this time no economic recovery is going to save Obama in 2012 and he’ll be ousted and replaced with the real thing, another GOPer president.
It isn’t just an “enthusiasm gap.” It’s a “gender gap,” a “race gap” and a “class gap.”
Until those we elect finally understand those three ideas, we can’t expect much progressive policy from them.
I’d much rather see more specific posts about those three gaps, rather than lumping them all together under one umbrella.
It’s a shame that the only way things may improve is if they first get worse. I say a shame because our founders gave us a system that in theory should’ve prevented this. This play has been repeated so many times it’s old news. The haves just continue to screw and harm the have nots until things get so bad they get fed up and violent. Our system, by including participation from everyone and allowed for populist change, was supposed to be the system that finally closed that play down for good.
Now ours is as corrupt as any in history. And the response by those getting screwed has been less and less participation (as evidenced by voting participation percentages since, say, the 1930′s), instead of more as the theory required. I guess we get the government we deserve.
Lets see,,,
Democrats want me to work till I’m 70 years old.
Democrats are requiring me to purchase health insurance from large crappy private insurance companies who really do a crappy job and over charge me.
Democrats have given my tax dollars they borrowed from china to large mega monster banks and wall street.
Hell I may as well vote repug, at least I know what I’m getting that way…
We were all conned and Nancy and harry need to move on…
When Obama said:
“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
…that should have been a wake-up call for anyone who was pinning their hopes for meaningful change on this guy making it to the Oval Office.
During the primaries, every one of the Republican wannabees was falling all over himself comparing himself to Reagan, then here came Obama doing the same thing.
Then many people, who call themselves progressives and liberals, vociferously defended Obama for associating himself with Reagan. Instead, they should have been recognized it as a clear signal to Republicans, that they could count on Obama. Anyone who took exception to Obama’s Gipper comparison just wasn’t fair, or they were a racist, or they didn’t know anything about politics blah blah blah.
We’re fucked in the drive through because too many people fell in love with a manufactured candidate. And, they didn’t do their homework on his history.
Time to start working at the local level, bit by bit. No one is going to get us out of this mess, except ourselves.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I agree with you and felt much the same way, but, btw, what were our choices? Sure, I could’ve voted for Cynthia McKinney and maybe should have, but that wouldn’t have made much difference.
Obama made a LOT of promises that younger voters – and many who may not have paid much attention before – thought BHO would at least try to fulfill. While I had lots of doubts about BHO, myself, I have to say that even as cynical as I am, I have been rather amazed at BHO’s “performance.”
Many of the voters are not that sophisticated, but maybe they learned a lesson from this?? I can only hope so.
I do see at least some – from both the right and left – starting to wake up to how we’ve all been “had.”
My personal feeling is that it’s somewhat easier dealing with so-called leftists/Democrats/progressives, bc, in my experience, they tend to be more rational, more open to questioning things, more willing to listen to arguments and information. That said, there are still Dems who don’t want to “get it” that the USA has been effed over by both parties at the federal level, and that the issue is not “us v. them” in terms of R v. D. It’s a class war. Hard for some to wake up and face that.
I am heartened to see a few conservatives I know wake up to the class war reality, plus realize that even if they’re a “good doggie,” the uber wealthy ain’t gonna toss them any “extra bones.”
In general, though, the right is hampered by their brainwashing to never, ever, under any circumstances, no matter what, forever & ever to ever agree with anything that a liberal says, does or thinks. That’s the most powerful form of brainwashing currently engaged in, which is why R pols are completely intrasigent about doing anything remotely “bipartisan” in terms of working across the aisle. It’s always a dog whistle to the righwing masses that liberals are wrong always about every single thing, no matter what. It works.
So even IF we return to rightwing gestapo politics, some conservatives – no matter how bad it gets – will be easily manipulated into blaming the left, and it could get really ugly at some point (making today’s temper tantrums look like child’s play).
Very sad. But I agree with an early post: the LEFT moved on a long time ago. It appears that it’s Democratic politicians who have been living in Denial, which, btw, is not just a river in Egypt.
So be it. BHO ran a bait & switch campaign. The public is waking up to that fact. And so: on it goes….
No incumbents, not one! Arianna Huffington said it right on Morning Joe, “We gave AIG $182 billion after one weekend and now Obama is proposing $50 billion to rebuild America.” This is a joke played on all of us. After Katrina, I could no longer listen to Bush. After healthcare, I can no longer listen to Obama.
Strongly agree.
While I appreciated the piece, this insinuation really disturbed me. I know what the lying SOB promised. I wasn’t reading dicksquat into what he was saying. To all those who tell me I should have been listening more closely, I have a simple response. Fuck you.
I agree wholeheartedly. The grassroots have been fighting a long time and we never expected a top-down transformation.
When Obama called for there to be no strings attached to the bailout, when he called on his Democratic colleagues in the senate to pass the FISA legislation with the telecom immunity rider, I knew who he was. I had no great expectations. But he was as close as a populist as we were going to get.
We weren’t naive as the poster suggests. We were hopeful. I don’t see any identity politics here. In fact, if you look back I’m sure you can find many posts and comments here that expressed our collective dismay at how Obama was being treated as the second coming of JFK.
The fault here does not lie with the voters. The disenfranchisement of the Democratic party is directly tied to Obama lying to us and siding with the enemy. Nothing more. Don’t lay the blame at my feet. Don’t lay the blame at the voters feet. We were punked and there is no way we could have prevented it.
At a critical time in history, when we needed to renew our vows to the constitution, Nancy Pelosi and her magic subpoenas never materialized. Obama and his constitutional law degree decided that Habeas Corpus was for chumps and that torture should be hidden from the public view. And the story has continued from there.
How are we supposed to change this dynamic? How is a grassroots effort going to create progressive change when we have no party to back us? How do we get our message out there when the media is controlled by conservatives and the congress is inches away from gutting net neutrality?
My parents told me last year that the only way things were going to get better was with a revolution. I was shocked that my peace loving liberal parents were thinking that way. Now I see their wisdom and I lie awake at night wondering when the revolution will come and what form it will take. How much more are the citizens willing to take before they stand up and revolt? Will there be violence on the streets? Will I have to learn how to shoot a gun?
These are things I never thought would cross my mind until Barack Obama became president. This isn’t identity politics and it isn’t the fault of the voters. It is the fault of one man who took the mantle of power at a critical point in history and failed miserably. We are all going to be paying the price.
This administration has made it difficult for anyone to hope in any sort of change in a system that remains the same no matter who is in the White House or which party controls congress.
Young voters who were imbued with idealism in 2008 are less likely to trust a system like this again. Obama is still fortunate that the black community as a whole hasn’t publicly disowned him and his right wing policies including the escalation of the war in Afghanistan which will see many more Americans killed for nothing remotely connected with our national security.
Econobuzz, look at who advised Obama: Goolsbee, Skull and Bones; Brzezinski, CFR, Trilateral Commission, the man who made Osama bin Laden possible by arming him and encouraging Muslim extremism against the Soviets. Maybe Obama was sincere but the people moving the marionette’s appendages couldn’t have hoped for a more pliant and obedient servant.
Excuse the repeat comment,
but this is something that has bothered me for a long time.
If I ask you to trust me and believe what I say,
and I know exactly what you have inferred from what I have said,
and I know that what you believe is not what I really intended and will not drive my actions,
but I nevertheless let you continue to believe it,
and then double cross you by doing exactly the opposite,
I am a no good fucking liar.
That I am also a politician doesn’t change the fact
that I am a no good fucking liar.
And if, after I double cross you, I blow you off
by saying that you shouldn’t really have believed what I said,
that you should have listened more closely,
then I deserve your contempt.
I agree.
I was given the choice of voting for McCain and continuing the failed Bush policies or voting for Obama’s “hope and change.”
Well I voted for “hope and change,” yet ended up with continuing the failed Bush policies.
Now, it is somehow my fault?
Here’s what we’ve got:
Totally agree. People act like this is a presidential election. I still am unsure if my vote counts even on the local level after the Halter/Lincoln debacle, but I’m gonna get out there and see if I can help keep Martinez OUT of the governor’s mansion at least and my Rep in office.
He may not be a progressive by name but he usually votes progressive.
Right on, Hugh. This post enraged me with it’s supercilious finger-wagging. First we get run over by CIA globalist NWO Bilderberger operative Obama (see Wayne Madsen’s investigation on the CIA angle), told to fuck off by Rahm, then this asshat seeks to blame everything on us for not organizing. What a fucking joke.
Sorry, asshat, we’ve moved on from the left-right paradigm. They both work for Wall street, and financial regulation, in the form of derivative legislation, didn’t happen. Hell, Obummer won’t even give us
Elizabeth Warren. Therefore, no matter who’s elected or how much “organizing” the grass roots does, the middle class is fucked when the next Clinton bubble bursts.
Whether or not we will be divided by Wall Street/Faux News propaganda when the collapse comes, or unite against the banksters, is the only question that matters.
May I suggest a book, (fiction?) written in 1995 by Dean Koontz called “Dark Rivers of the Heart”?
It talks a bout resistance to a police state which was actually created with the DEA asset forfeiture laws.
Of course, who needs those now? The gov has just turned all our assets over to central banks all over the world. Sorta Privatized the program…as it were
That’s true, because they have divided us against each other and we all know what happens when a house is divided against itself………
From “Animal House”
Face it, Flounder. ….Face it, you f*cked up. You trusted us.
Didn’t Obama/Rahm say something like this ??? – “no place to go” “F the UAW”
So “Well I voted for “hope and change,” yet ended up with continuing the failed Bush policies. Now, it is somehow my fault?” – - – YEP (Mine also)
I’m beginning to think he was sincere, but is surrounded by packs of wolves.
America was the last fat goose the Friedmanites could steal from.
And I doubt they’ll be able to take down Europa as most of those countries didn’t fall for it….unless we decide to attack them in some way as well.
On Elizabeth Warren I am told they expect and want a GOP Congress that will reject tough regulations – so they must hold off on any head of agency until the Congressional review/veto period for new regulations extends in the GOP Congress, lest that head of the Agency – Temporary or approved by Senate – issue tough rules that actually take effect.
Here’s what struck me:
I was offered the maxim over and over through civics courses and then political science courses that young, new voters don’t usually matter to elections, because turnout among people newly eligible to vote is always low, even in high-turnout presidential elections where the media often focuses on the impact of young new voters.
However, the numbers for 2008 show a notable exception that had an indisputable impact on the presidential race and on many state races as well. North Carolina is one example where the ‘youth vote’ was a real factor in the slim Democratic wins in this rapidly changing and very divided state, including Obama’s.
But what matters to young people entering a job market in crisis, unsurprisingly, is employment and health care. The same data suggest that this group supported a public option in much higher numbers than other age groups. And purely anecdotally, my experience is that young people in their 20s in North Carolina who supported Obama are still pro-Democrat and pro-left but are aware of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of a huge majority and an electoral mandate to make universal health care happen, and are pretty unhappy that the Democrats dropped the ball.
We’re all in support of the parents’-insurance-until-26 reform, but many of us are older than that, all of us know that we’re coming up on that age rapidly, all of us know that we’re more likely to need health insurance after 26, and most importantly, many of us didn’t have insurance through our parents to begin with, because our parents either didn’t have insurance or had extremely terrible insurance.
“the middle class is fucked when the next Clinton bubble bursts.” – just curious as to the thought -
The dot com bubble burst in 1999 – for Calendar year 2000 Clinton ran a surplus and unemployment was around 5% as the economy added millions of jobs.
I appreciate the Clinton hate some have – appreciate it but don’t understand it as every “sin” when looked at was either not a sin at all or was not a big deal in the economy (G-S mod did nothing about investment banks as G-S never applied to investment banks who started the derivative crisis, NAFTA signed by Bush passed with minor progressive mods that did not work and indeed was before Paul Samuelson showed that trade does not always lift all boats, etc.) and the accomplishments were despit having to deal with a GOP controlled Congress – not quite the same as having a 60 vote margin in the Senate, but then refusing to use the budget reconciliation approach that got the Bush Tax cuts for the rich passed in the first place.
We’re all in support of the parents’-insurance-until-26 reform – WAS TO OFFER the coverage – but not price control it
The University of Illinois’s post 21 coverage is a $7000 addition to the standard employee portion on a family plan. Elsewhere it is the same story.
If the Democratic party wants to be successful they would need to act like a left of center party. They have been a spineless center party in a nation of in blissful self destructive mode. The general populace seems to be turning into a nation of spectators cheering for the destruction of the weak or worse yet yearning for the next sacrificial pawn. It is as if they want to play the lottery both for a chance at wealth and destruction. It’s a Walmart world. Buy garbage from the communist for pennies less than quality goods from your neighbors.
Ding!
I use the “Clinton bubble” term out of deference to Robert Scheer’s analysis (more here). Clinton brought in the Rubin-ites and gutted Glass-Steagal. As for the surplus you referenced, that was a result of robbing from the Social Security trust fund that I started paying higher payroll taxes on in 1983. Now Obuttboy wants to cut that Social Security and laugh with Clinton the next time they play golf together. Please.
Much of the Clinton economic miracle was a result of the U.S. being ahead of the world in information technology which, of course, Clinton himself had nothing to do with. Clinton also endorsed the Murrah building false flag attack to destroy the Waco autopsy records which would have proved that ATF was responsible for the death of the Waco children at the Koresh compound, thereby setting us on the civil liberties destroying course that Bush/Cheney expanded on with the 9/11 “pageant”. And don’t even get me started on the Telecommunications Act and Welfare “reform”.
Bill Mckibben (internationally-known climate change expert), on his site 350 dot org, wrote a very interesting post the past week. He talked about how he is glad that we all gave the Democrats a chance to change our direction. SInce they have totally failed, however, we need to change tactics. (On a total side note: Do you think that corporate America would hurt the job market just to get climate change off the front burners?) He wrote about how the majority of Americans who prefer progressive change are often ignored, but the NRA (which represents a minority of gun owners) has a directional voice in almost everything. The NRA plays hardball, and we need to learn from them. The stakes for all of us are quite a bit more important than assault-weapon ownership. We can no longer tolerate, “Aw baby, I know I lied to you again, but I promise it will never happen again!”
I think it’s more important now that the left gain some measure of power, regardless of whether that gain is accompanied by Democratic or Republican party gains. It’s said that the GOP fears their rank and file, while the Democrats hold theirs in disdain. That cliche rings true to me. Whatever needs to occur in order for Democrats to begin fearing their base–that is what needs to happen, regardless of short-term losses or gains for one party or the other.
Pretty astute reading of them tea leaves, Pap. And to think, I’m beginning to miss Shrub Jr… At least Stewart and Colbert were funnier then.
It is our hope that some such pressure results from this.
I hope the pups here will help make it happen.
Clinton ran a surplus by borrowing Social Security money and by Greenspan’s manipulation of interest rates to encourage people to continue depleting their resources by taking equity out of their homes and spending like drunken sailors. The debt that Clinton foisted on Arkansas when he was governor through the bond authority agency was continued when he was president by making it OK to go into debt as long as the Maestro thought that things were different now.
Judging from the posts above, the Left has already been rudely awakened, so there is nothing new DiMaggio’s post. If I am supposed to be frightened by Flea-baggers and Blue Dogs and Republicans somehow being worse than what President Zero has given us, I am at a loss seeing it. The radical left and right see one thing clearly as per George Carlin: the only way to see the American Dream anymore is to be asleep, and that’s just the way THEY (the wealthy owners of America who have bought virtually everything and bought off virtually everyone in government) want it.
The other day I heard that Republican accused to arranging for several of his buddies to run in his primary as members of the Green Party. The idea was to break up the Dem vote so he, the Republican, could win. There was a lot of press given this story and most of it accused the Green candidates of being hippies, or vagrants, or crazies, and this was all some Rovian trick. Sort of like Alvin Greene in South Carolina. But the man defended himself by saying he simply encouraged a few of his friends (with whom he has many disagreements about government and policy) to get out there and put their names up for election to let the people decide the merits.
Well I am no Republican, and this may well be a tactical feat of jiu-jitsu in the electorate, but damn it, he just might be right. Maybe this is the way to go about getting better tickets, better choices, and beating back the influence of the bought-and-for who we can readily identify—the Corporate Dem and Republican incumbents. And I also agree the mid-terms are not the Presidential elections. A good warning shot over the bow of all these bastards is long overdue.
Too bad they have a Right of Nixon ideology…
Nothing to worry about IMO. There will be a HUGE turnout in November just like ’08. As long as all the voters who registered in ’08 are still on the rolls, somebody will vote for them even if they don’t vote. Not going to lose the House or the Senate, maybe even gain some seats. November surprise, not an October one!
You are confused. Every dollar in the social security trust fund HAS to be loaned to the federal government, and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States by law. Social security is the borrower of first resort. Social security surpluses have always gone to the federal government. The Clinton Administration turned the rest of the deficit into a surplus.
The use of home equity as though it was a credit card happened under Bush. I’m not going to take the time to find it, but it won’t take much trouble for you to find a graph of home equity credit over time.
One possibility that has not been considered: Barack Obama’s deal with Wall Street might have been along the lines of “If you folks finance my campaign, and if I’m elected, I will betray the Democratic base to such an extent they’ll abandon their party forever.” I admit that there is very little hard evidence in support of such a cynical speculation, but there’s very little evidence that contradicts it.
People were taking out home equity loans in the mid-90s and being encouraged to do so with nostrums from economists that the business cycle had changed and there would never be another recession. Meanwhile Bubba was endorsing and getting passed legislation that the GOP couldn’t push through like GATT, WTO, the extension of the death penalty for more federal crimes, and the erosion of the 4th Amendment.
And I’m not mistaken at all about Social Security. Social Security does NOT have to be used to finance the debt or to help pay for budget items. Social Security is a non-budget item and all the rhetoric about cutting the deficit by reducing Social Security payments is just another bait-and-switch by this liar of a president.
The much ballyhooed Clinton surplus would have been much, much less had he left Social Security alone.
Apathy? De-politicization? Naiveté? I think not.
This is one of the most condescending, patronizing excuses for analysis that I have ever seen:
“The public … must continually be reminded that real democratic change is never handed down from above, but has to be fought for.”
I guess this is a preview of the kind of thing we can expect from Rahmocratic Party apologists after the election. But the fact is that the Democratic hierarchy made a mockery of the last two election cycles by selling out everyone who “fought” for cash, exactly as it did to everyone who fought for the last 40 years. So, obviously, it is OUR fault. It is our fault that we are not rich and well-connected enough for the Party leadership to bother with us.
I’m not black and I’m certainly not young. I am not often accused of being naive. But I am now definitely on the Left–the Left that used to be the Center. We on the Left have correctly analyzed the likely results of choosing the candidates and policies that the Party has consistently promoted. We have had growing majorities on our side. Yet, at every turn, we are betrayed by the Party.
In my case, here in Colorado, we built up a solid challenge to the awful Marilyn Muskrat over years, only to have our candidate pushed out in favor of the awful Ken Salazar’s awful former aide, Betsy Markey–Marilyn Musgrave without the honesty. In the Senate race, a solid Democrat, Andrew Romanoff, was shoved aside by a leadership that fell over itself appointing one of rightwing sugar-daddy Phil Anschutz’s lawyer/CEO layoff artists, Michael Bennett. Both of them worked hand-in-glove with the White House and the corporate oligarchs to screw us over on health care reform, banking regulation, civil liberties, and the wars.
So, given this history, given the Party of Carter, Clinton, and Obama, how can you or anyone suggest that voting for the Democratic Party is a vote against the Republicans? or in favor of anything worthwhile? We now have the choice of giving the Right a victory with a large number of voters participating–and thus a mandate–or giving the Right a victory with little or no one participating.
I know what I choose. Better the Republicans win the election and wreck the country with overtly rightwing policies than that the Democrats do exactly the same thing by stealth. At least, with the Republicans victorious, the corporatist, aristocratic ideology will take the blame.
It is amazing to me how “people on the left” tend to think that it is “people on the right” who are ignorant, brainwashed, “led like sheep”. Let me tell you something – people who vote on the right usually are VERY clear about the candidates they support. It may not be what YOU think they should be for – progressive fiscal policy, aggressive business/environmental regulation, interventionist-on-select social issues, hands-off-on on others ( well, they are, just not on the same issues as you), and other aspects of liberal ideology- but they are usually very well attuned to their candidates. Think they didn’t know what Goldwater, Nixon, Reagen, Bush (1&2) – and for that matter Lott, Gingrich, Delay, Boehner, et al – were about? Sure they are. My point? It’s progressives who fall for the okey-doke. Clinton initiated/capitulated some of the most “anti-progressive” legislation in the post-Nixon era. NAFTA, it can be argued, is the nail in the coffin for the middle class. Obama is trying to “out-triangulate” him. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did everything they could to water down the Financial Services whatever-it’s-called bill.The Congressional Black Caucus regularly sells out it constituents to big biz. The Progressive Congressional Caucus fights Blue Dogs in a token manner only. And whatever happened to the Elizabeth Warren nomination?
And, as my screen name suggests, I’m an African-American, and let me tell you something about that: most black people I know voted for Obama equal parts because of “hope/change” and “he’s the first brother with a real shot”. And I understand that. Heck, I voted for him for those reasons (that plus McCain lost any and all credibility with me nominating Palin). But as I talk to my intelligent, hyper credentialed Af-Am friends with their Mba’s,law degrees and Phd’s, I see they are no more willing to look at this guy critically than Thomas Franks’ Kansans were to look at Bush.
And I see all of the MSNBC host and their pundit guest falling all over themselves being more mad at Obama critics than him for his policies.
So maybe the problem isn’t just them but also some of us.
To me, dude just likes being President, and he looks forward to the time he leaves the office so that, like Clinton and Gore, he can make $100 million.
Like most of the younger people I’ve met of late, you are hardly naive politically–if anything, you are less so than those among your parents’ generation who go on voting for the same lies and getting the same results year after year.
When people say you are naive, ask them: is it naive to expect results when you invest in a party and its candidates? Is it naive to expect said party to back candidates who don’t just talk but actually deliver? Of course not.
The real naivete is to expect people to vote for you again after you let them down. If the Democratic Party wants young votes or old votes, or plain old intelligent votes, it needs to purge its ranks and let some decent candidates get through to the ballot.
I think it is more a question of communicating the successes they’ve had. Yes there were times I wish they had gotten more. However overall they’ve had a pretty good run. Probably only rivaled by Johnson or FDR. They’ve done the following:
1. Lilly Ledbetter Act – Equal pay for equal work for women;
2. Are on schedule to get us out of Iraq;
3. Pushed through universal health care and reformed the insurance industry (no more recision, children can stay on their parents policy until 26, no more denial due to pre-existing conditions);
4. Reformed student loans – took them away from the private lenders saving us $80 billion and also providing lower cost loans to students;
5. Education reform (slipped this guy into the stimulus);
6. Billions for green energy jobs – improved batteries, improved electrical grid, more manufacturing jobs in the US;
7. Tax cuts for 95% of Americans;
8. The $8,000 credit for first time home buyers;
9. Financial reform – read yesterday that one of the big investment banks is ending a division to comply with the Volker rule;
10. Even if the Cap and Trade bill doesn’t go through, his EPA team is moving on carbon regulation;
11. He’s been good about funding the VA;
12. He made BP actually pay out damages to the tune of $20 billion plus. Whereas the Exxon spill didn’t result in Exxon paying out diddly.
13. We are finally starting to take diplomacy seriously.
14. Two solid Supreme Court picks;
Not bad for less than 2 years in office. Even better when you consider how much he’s been attacked by the right wing media.
children can stay on their parents’ policy with NO cost controls
no more denial due to pre-existing conditions with NO cost controls
Students who have loans with SallieMae CANNOT refi them and they are horrendous loans.
And how is that working for the housing crisis?
No he did not. BP has not paid the full 20 billion. It will be paid over a number of years. And the federal gov. has stated that the seafood is safe – NOT.
What bothers me is this micro-analysis of the past and future elections. The only times we have gotten progressive legislation out of our government is when they were threatened by civil unrest or revolution.
FDR used these fears to push through the new deal and Johnson used them for Civil Rights. Even Nixon turned enviornmentalist to stop the commie revolution of the 60′.
Anyone who thinks we can stop the corporatists without a threat of Socialist revolution is deluded. I believe that that peacefull revolution is the only way to save America from itself.
A point I’ve made rather often, to little avail. Until progressives demand what they really want, and punish politicians who don’t deliver, they won’t be taken seriously.
dude@50,
The 12 Republicans and who had their names placed into the Green Party column, broke the law. Obviously, you’re not advocating the ‘breaking the law’ Republican agenda (Bush/Cheney version) otherwise you would not have made your statement.
And now moving on!
The rank and file of Democrats will, at some point, decide to clean out the chicken coops in their search for the arch-conservatives and who are wearing the “sheep’s clothing” for being Neo-liberals, and when this happens, the new faces at the DNC, will start looking better, since a ‘third party’ rise to fill this political vacuum is not going to happen.
Of course, my being somewhat arrogant, I would suggest that Hispanics and Native Americans being given the opportunity to ‘take control’ of the DNC as the first step in a long and intensive OJT regimen, since this is what it’s going to take to eventually eliminate from America, the “Society for the Criminally Stupid” that was foisted on the majority of white Democrats and done quite effectively by the Bush/Cheney Era.
Jaango
Yup, Mary Elizabeth Lease of Kansas said it best over 100 years ago when she urged farmers to:
“raise less corn and more hell”
We need to stop cooperating with this discredited system which no longer provides for the general welfare. Peacefull protests, targeted product boycotts and nationwide strikes.
I’m 50 – in ’85 I was a 7 buck an hour cook in Boston, living in Tip O’Neil’s district. In ’88 I was a 9 or 10 buck an hour cook. Since ’89 I’ve lived in a few of the better neighborhoods of Seattle.
IF I had a dollar for every yuppie fuck who told me a bunch of excuses for sell outs and political incompetents losing to fascist scum, I’d be retired.
NO ONE who was sentient expected the world to change. IF Obama had appointed non sell out yuppie fucks, AND had the best strategies and the best tactics, we the u.s.a of peee-ons would have been LUCKY to start to turn around only 1 or 2 of the HUGE national disasters: education, infrastructure, energy, banking and finance, housing, food, defense and security …
and right out the gate we got rahm & geithner & summers & howard dean ditched & AIG Care & AHIP Care & Pharma Care & Bclackwater Care …
While I’ll never vote for fascist lackey lying scum like Palin, at least they’re honest – they’re liars, they’re thieves, they’re scum.
WTF do the slime on “our” side have going for them, other than decades of living large selling us peee-ons out?
rmm.
Way to eat your seed corn, Dems.
Younger people who do not vote this year sooner or later become older people who will – people who won’t ever forget how badly Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party once punked them out of their political innocence.
Good luck getting ‘em back.
And the sad truth is that many of us were never innocent. I started paying attention to politics in my teens, during the Clinton years, and like a lot of 20-somethings I walked into the show during the interesting spectacle of a President who was well-liked getting reamed out by a party that wasn’t, over some nosy-preacher blow job business that everyone knew that no one should be talking about except Bill and his wife and maybe his kid, with maybe a third of the country ever being in favor of the circus coming to Washington.
Then I went back and looked at what had happened while I was growing up and realized that I wasn’t overly fond of Clinton either but no white guys like me in the magazines and newspapers I was reading seemed to give a shit about the issues. They either wanted his head or said, gee, aren’t the Republicans messed up, and left it at that. What I dimly remember is that the feminist spokespeople, now used to being marginalized, were among the few saying things like “Yeah, he didn’t commit a crime, but he let NAFTA slide and gutted the social safety net because Dick Morris suggested it.”
Take that. Add 9/11 itself. Add eight years of the Bush Presidency, where we knew damn well that the man in charge was lucky to be able to sit in and ponder dimly the meetings of important people deciding what he would say. Add the two wars. Add the financial collapse. Add the fact that all of this is the living legacy of Reagan, who left office before I entered kindergarten.
Young people, by the time we got to Obama, weren’t innocent and naive about the role of the President. We were fatigued, as fatigued as I imagine everyone has been since at least the Vietnam War in this country. We saw Obama as somebody who could at least shift the debate, a proven thinker who talked about the need for health care and working government programs and transparency and the responsibility of individuals to their government and, just as importantly, vice versa.
We didn’t expect him to fix our lives or save our souls; we just expected him to catch us up, put some brakes on Wall Street crime, give us at least the option of a basic, no-frills, 100% paid-for health plan, treat DADT as an issue of human rights and not of officer-corps comfort, generally make us look less stupid to the world as a whole. Hell, we knew he was going to keep hammering on how important it was to win in Afghanistan, and of course we’re not going to ‘win’ in Afghanistan. We were willing to take one pointless war because no one was offering us the option of zero.
You can understand why we are disappointed.
First – thanks for the cogent reply.
Sheer is a good person I admire – but without any financial background – and calling the 2003 to 2007 derivative mess the Clinton bubble because he signed a GOP bill in 2000 the Greenspan designed and which followed Greenspan’s theory of no new regulations is a bit wrong. Derivatives were around in the 70′s when my then and current friend Clancy at JH and my acquaintance at JH and MS Tilley developed the math that even a random PHD could follow – you did not need to be an actuary. The tranche game began in the 80′s with the con game that risk was reduced by geographic diversity starting up in the 90′s. But it was only under Bush that things got out of hand with liar loans and the Bush in 2003 stopping of the minimal oversight that had existed. Commodities Futures solved the California problem of 1999 and was not totally bad – but it did indeed lock in the status quo that Greenberg wanted – Sheer is correct here. Clinton has said he regrets following Rubins advice – and could add Greenspan to that list. But Speer states that G-S had something to do with what happen – but I, Krugman, and most of those I play with see no logic in that position. Investment banks were never under G-S, Investment banks led the charge on derivatives of all types, Investment banks without deposit taking ability led that charge, and finally the only major thing the modification of G-S did was allow the Travelers-City Merger thereby giving Rubin his $120 million gift of a directorship at City post leaving the Clinton administration. The villains are Rubin and Greenspan, with Clinton making the bad decision to follow Greenspan’s advice.
You say “As for the surplus you referenced, that was a result of robbing from the Social Security trust fund that I started paying higher payroll taxes on in 1983.” and this is wrong – go to the Treasury site and download the month by month spreadsheet that gives the National Debt – and note that the National Debt decrease in calendar year 2000 – it would have decreased in fiscal year 2000 but Bush pulled in next years defense spending and pushed into October (fiscal year ends 9/30) the Sept 2001 corporate tax collection – just so it would not show a true decrease for fiscal year. But Bush could not take away the fact of a national debt decline for calendar year 2000. The 2 surpluses before that were based on Social Security as you noted. The only true measure is the nation debt increase – and Bush never noted that he ran true deficits of 500 million just about every year – the “improvement” (I forget if it was just one year or a couple) was just a larger SS surplus.
The build out of DARPA into the internet and the addition of the NCSA Mosaic browser in 93 did indeed kick off a growth in information tech – both of those were pushed by Gore in his 1991 $600 million financing of the build out and research project bill. But most of the growth in the 90′s was not in information tech – at least not if measured by dollars – hard to not credit Clinton folks for all parts of the growth.
As to “Clinton also endorsed the Murrah building false flag attack to destroy the Waco autopsy records which would have proved that ATF was responsible for the death of the Waco children at the Koresh compound, thereby setting us on the civil liberties destroying course that Bush/Cheney expanded on with the 9/11 “pageant” – sorry but I do not buy even an ounce of that statement.
As the Telecommunications Act and Welfare “reform”, the Telecommunications Act resulted in the build out we have today – granted the copyright rules were nuts, and as to Welfare reform, it was veto’d until it was softened and post passage was softened some more – with a result that is praised by most social science folks.
Again thanks for the reply
I get this defeatist shit from the MSM. Now here, too, at FDL? The Repubs are putting up some nut-job candidates, who if elected, will serve to destroy the country. Saving the country is something worth fighting for. I’m voting Dems, you betcha!
Look at California. The repubs are running two former CEO’s, both funding their own loser campaigns with their own ill-gotten gains. EMeg Moneybucks has already spent over $100 MM of her own money: stolen when serving on the board of Goldman-Sachs where she got sweetheart IPO deals in exchange for steering EBay business to G-S. Carly Fiorina single-handedly nearly destroyed HP. All they know is cutting jobs and shipping them overseas. So, yeah, give me a break. Voters will not put these CEOs into office no matter what your Pew Polling says.
Trolls have infected this site with their call to stay home and not vote. Swing voters are not going to vote for the list of crackpot teabaggers the repugs are putting up — so your job apparently is to talk down the Dems to keep them from voting. Apathy sucks! Screw you, I’m voting and voting Dems.
I hear you thanos, but (and I hate to break this to you) people in your age cohort aren’t exactly the ‘young’ voters I had in mind. ;-)
My point was that if young people voting today didn’t start paying attention under Clinton, they started paying attention under George W. Bush, which is going to make them less innocent, not more.
The irony of many of the critical comments here is that they prove my point. One comment says: “Well I voted for “hope and change,” yet ended up with continuing the failed Bush policies.
Now, it is somehow my fault?” This is precisely the point, it is all of our faults on the left for anyone who thought they could elect Obama and he would magically promote change. He’s a friggin politician! If you’re mad b/c he promised a bunch of things he didn’t follow through with and you thought he was going to, that’s the height of naivete. People can say he promised progressive change in his campaign (he did on many occasions) but the critical observer at the time knew that this was a bunch of propaganda. Check out paul street’s two books on Obama if you don’t believe me. the second has an entire chapter, titled “We were warned.”
Also check out my own warnings at the time in the piece: “Obama and the Future of the Left, or Why I voted for Ralph Nader” (http://www.zcommunications.org/obama-and-the-future-of-the-left-or-why-i-voted-for-ralph-nader-by-anthony-dimaggio)
I explicitly warned right after the 2008 election: “My largest fear following this election is that, despite the encouraging record voter turnout, many citizens will contently return to their apathetic, politics as usual understanding of American politics. The “Anyone-But-Bush” mindset that led to Obama’s victory carries with it potentially great dangers. We should never assume that political leaders (of either party) can be trusted to promote the public interest. If Obama is to make any headway in pursuing policies that benefit the majority, it will be directly contingent upon the general public forcing him to take progressive action. Outside of vague rhetorical promises, Obama has given little indication that he will promote progressive reforms on his own. It is only the vigilance of a concerned American public that will lead to real change. We should keep this in mind when reflecting on the legacy of the 2008 election and on the limits of the two-party system.”
Precisely what I warned about above is what happened on the left: people voted for Obama, expected change, then sat back and literally did nothing for the last two years, at a time when the worst economy since the great depression provided them the best reason ever to actually be engaged in demanding change. Now people are mad b/c they were betrayed by obama and his promises, and aren’t going to go out and vote again, let along engage in activism to build social movements, which are now non-existent on the left. this is the height of apathy and naivete, and what’s most tragic is that it was all foreseen in my warnings, and could have been avoided. What we should have been doing after Obama was elected was immediately building social movements to demand progressive change. Instead, people naively sat back and waited for Obama the savior to rescue them from the Bad bush years. This isn’t how politics works, and it’s exactly why the left’s in for a rude awakening this fall, as the even more extreme republicans will be returned to office and will come back to finish the job they startd in 2008 by ruining what little economic recovery took place and presiding over the dismantlement of the rest of the welfare state (which Obama will be looking forward to in light of his neoliberal policies). expect these policies to hurt very badly (worse than what we’ve seen under the Dems), and at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame (myself included) for being so ignorant to think that we could sit back and that we wouldn’t have to get involved for real change to occur.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you, now or two years ago. On another note, thanks to all my FDL readers who actually get the point of this piece and understand that change doesn’t come from voting once every four years, but from forming real movements and demanding change from opportunistic, cynical political leaders.
Anthony DiMaggio
The economic crisis of the last two years was the last and best reason to be building social movements outside of electoral politics to demand change. I blame everyone on the left (including myself) for the failure to do this, but I also refuse to exonerate anyone of those who naively commented above that they’re mad because they thought they could vote for Obama and he should have followed through with his rhetoric. Politicians represent the public as much as they’re forced to. If there’s no pressure, there’s no change. Expecting to vote for change and magicaly see it without any bottom up impetus is the ultimate naivete. Getting disillusionsed with Obama for not promoting that change, then refusing to vote again by sitting on the sidelines b/c of one’s apathy, while allowing the even worse REpublicans to come back to power, is just as ridiculous. Obama’s failures should be agitating those on the left with any real understanding of politics to become MORE involved, not less. I stand by my original conclusion: it’s going to take a whole lot of this economy getting worse before people again realize that no one in this world hands you anything. you have to fight for it, and that fight goes WAY beyond going to the ballot box every four years and waiting for magical changes to be handed down from above.
“hoping for progressive change”
Premise wrong, remainder irrelevant.
“Voters thought they could ensure a new era of “hope” and “change” simply by voting a fresh face into the highest office in the land and returning the Democrats to majority status. This type of reasoning represents identity politics at its worst, and it is the predictable effect of elections that are defined by individual personalities, rather than by real issues. Identity-politics voting does not bring about democratic change, and assumptions that it will are unwarranted. Progressive change never comes from the top down, but from the pressure of grassroots protestors and activism demanding a better world. If “the left” understood this basic point, they would have been busy building social movements over the last two years, rather than sitting back and waiting for Obama to save them.”
EXACTLY! At last I found someone who is saying what I have been saying for the past year and a half! Were you saying these things THEN? Not saying you weren’t, only that I never saw it. I never saw ANYONE on the Left calling for US to organize and to PROTEST for OUR AGENDA and to COUNTER PROTEST against the Tea Party wackos. Man, our Leadership blew it BIG TIME! We went home after the inauguration; we would have done better to STAY IN WASHINGTON to put pressure on the Senate & Congress!
Anyone that has grasp on reality is abandoning the existing political order as a time/money wasting scam. It doesn’t matter who or what is elected. Those that control the money supply control the social/political agenda.
Your point would be better made in another context–i.e. to another readership. FDL readership is largely in the activist camp. Your readers here were active in various ways during the policy battles of the early Obama administration–most notably the battle for HCR. To characterize that audience as somehow “sitting around and waiting for Obama to hand us something” is simply inaccurate, and amazingly tone-deaf.
Know your readers.
“Those hoping for progressive change this fall are in for a rude awakening”.
Sorry had my rude awakening last year when I caught on to Obama’s backroom health insurance deal and the reality that he was too incompetent to hold on to Teddy Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts.
I mean, the guy wins with an overwhelming majority, is the leader of a party that has solid majorities in both houses, is just plain popular, and he can’t hold on to Teddy’ seat?
Thank you, great post Tony. Recommended
Twain, in 37 words you said it all. Nothing more need be said to state the context.
Any Dean Progressive — those who collectively developed and built the entire modern political methodologies of microfinancing, online organizing for offline actions, plus online multimedia publishing, bypassing the sacred cow that only network ad buys counted, building advanced GOTV infrastructures — all those things that enabled a Pelosi to be crowned Madame Decider of the House after the ’06 midterms, through the utilization of Dean’s 50-state strategy in total open defiance of Rham Emmanuel’s AND Pelosi’s “We know best” old school top-down “20 strategic states, just give us the money and shut up” apoplectic protests — and the same methodologies and collective smart execution of GOTV that caused Obama to ascend to the US Senate from out of nowhere, then on to the US Presidency — knows quite well that all along this timeline, while we delivered them tangible paper-trailable victory, they denied denied denied us every single thing we cared about. Not one thing has been given to us. NOT ONE.
Impeachment — remember back when that mattered to us all? Madame Decider said off the table… despite Mike Stark’s eloquent questions about constitutional duty. FISA retroactive immunity? Shithole Harry was thrilled to give it away as a starting offer, spitting in our faces, for he too only got to his little throne due to our brainwork and footwork shifting the Senate balance of power with those completely unexpected wins that Rham & His Company of Smartasses had written off because, they knew best… Harry’s power had not one thing to do with his pathetic little brain.
From there it was capitulation city and we’ve been mocked and spat upon ever since. Hah hah with Tim Kaine’s spin of Gibb’s “he had a bad day” remark regarding “the professional left”, huh huh hah hah, yeah.
There isn’t anything left for us progressives. All squandered by a bunch of lazy timid fatass pigs. Honestly speaking, this might sound like anathema, but I could really give a shit at this point about my Senator Barbara Boxer. She was great when she dissected Condoleesa Rice. But she showed her ultimate colors when she placed Senate Chips ahead of the progressive agenda when she rushed to Connecticut to come to the aid of her dead Joe Lieberman when Lamont whipped his ass.
What a traitor she was. I won’t forget it. And no, nobody need remind me in their little Democratic Party “cutesy” Big tent way “well you’re just hurting yourself if you vote Republican”. That’s what I have come to despise about stupid loyalist Party Regular Democrats. As Stupid and Reactive as Glenn Beck Supporters — only just slighly on better standing on issues. “No, little Democrats, nothing I have said remotely indicates I will vote for a Republican, okay?” Get that into your little tiny equally conditioned brains. I am saying I won’t forgive for that stupid selfish act:
Our formerly most wonderful liberal Senator went and hand grenaded all her work and all our work by undermining everything in the Senate for 2-3-4 years thanks to her little “scratch my back Joe, I’ll scratch your back” loyalty thing where she raced up to help Joe — knowing what a dick he was, and WOULD be on all votes coming forward.
ASK YOURSELF: AFTER that stupendously stupid move on Boxer’s part that had a HUGE impact on helping Joe win that goddamn election, killing all sorts of legislation, casting doubts on Obama’s election, intensifying our role in Iraq under Bush, multiplying the killing and maiming of Americans no less, did you even see BOXER try to extract anything out of JOE? I didn’t. I never saw one piece of restraint from him, so I hardly believe she was valiantly hard at work preventing something catastrophic we don’t know about. SHE DID NOTHING. At the very least after she sold out the Democratic Party and all the liberals in CA who have raised money for her and worked to elect her for so many years, the very minimum she could have done is play the stupid game in the other direction — and get her quo for her quid by way of shutting Joe down on multiple votes.
So, she may be great on the environment. I don’t give a damn. She fucked this nation and she is not immune from facing accountability for her stupid selfish choices. (I remember quite well seeing one of my favorite Dean colleagues: Maura in VA there in CT asking Boxer questions on video about ow she could support Lieberman given his stand on abortions and Boxer brushed her off and treated her with such disrespect as though maura didn’t know what she was even talking about. It was very old school).
So, I just want to affirm what Twain said. The progressives, or true Left, have long ago seen the score. We delivered, and were dismissed, then mocked. So we don’t need any editorials or half-baked analysis clue-training us about what is to come. We’ve seen the upcoming season well in advance on downloadables… Too bad if the rest of you were so dumb as to give Obama and his conniving crew even 1/10th of a chance. Right out the gate with the hiring of Rham, we got the big wide unmistakable FUCK YOU.
Why do people even bother to assemble words like this Seminal piece. Do you really think you’re arriving at something important or new? if so, you ought to working at the DMV.
Hmmmm. I had pretty much ignored this piece of drivel since the rest of the crowd here seemed to be addressing it quite adequately, but had a minute this morning to revisit it and decided to respond to your own specific comments:
As I began your zcommunications article I thought you might actually have a clue, since you had correctly identified Obama as no real progressive back before he took office. But you still believed then that “an Obama administration would be significantly better than a McCain or Bush administration”, so that pretty well demolishes any claim to prescience on your part (not that many of us didn’t HOPE that this would be true after he was elected, of course, and may even have been somewhat surprised at just how much of a Bush III he actually turned out to be).
And it was also promising that you had voted for Nader, until you admitted that you did so only because that vote really wouldn’t matter. Shades of David Cobb’s 2004 campaign: “Vote for your friendly corporate warmonger Kerry unless voting for me is sure not to hurt him!” was a major reason that I voted for Nader in my swing state that year (and again in 2008, by the way: Obama really didn’t deserve my vote any more than he deserved yours, and I didn’t have to live in a ‘safe’ state to deprive him of it).
(By the way, I voted for Gore in 2000: I only became a Nader voter after the Democratic party demonstrated so unequivocally during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq that supporting them was no longer an option.)
As others have noted, people here at FDL haven’t been sitting on their hands waiting for Obama to save us for the past 20 months. If you had any acquaintance with us you’d know that, so why you popped up here and began incompetently babbling is puzzling (but not of sufficient interest that I’m breathless awaiting an answer, you understand). We’re really not generally inhospitable, but we don’t suffer fools gladly – especially when they persist even after having been corrected.