The polling since the conventions shows that Democrats are doing better than expected. President Obama now apparently has a clear lead over Mitt Romney. Democratic Party control of the Senate seems likely to survive this election year of many more Democratic rather than Republican Senate seats up for election. And, even in House races, it looks like the Democrats will pick up a number of seats; though whether they can pick up enough seats to take back the House is still an unlikely prospect, and without the House President Obama’s second term is likely to be much like his last year and three-quarters, rather than his first two years.
So, what ought to be done to ensure a Democratic victory in the House and perhaps even a no loss of seats Senate outcome? My view is that the Democrats need to make some strong promises to the voters, conditional on those voters returning the Democrats to majority control of both Houses of Congress. Here’s my list of promises Democratic candidates for office should make to voters to ensure a return to a majority in both Houses of Congress.
– I promise to vote No on any bill that will cut spending on Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid during my term of office. I also promise to vote no on any procedural vote that would facilitate a vote to get such a bill out of any committee I serve on; or any procedural vote to facilitate a floor vote of any such bill. My promise includes any bill that would raise the age of eligibility for full Medicare benefits, or that would change the Social Security cost of living adjustment formula unless the change proposes increases to the COLA by taking into account the disproportionate Medical and pharmaceutical expenses seniors pay compared to people under the age of eligibility.
– I promise to vote Yes on any bill providing for $1000 per person revenue sharing payments from the Federal Government to the American States so that State and local employees who have lost their jobs since the onset of the present Wall Street-induced recession, may be hired back and State public services fully restored. I promise to vote Yes on any motion to report such a bill out of any committees I serve on, and I also promise to vote Yes on any procedural motion facilitating a floor vote on such legislation, and to vote NO on any motion blocking a floor vote on such legislation.
– I promise to vote Yes on any bill providing for a Federal Job Guarantee (JG) program, guaranteeing a job offer at a living wage with full fringe benefits to anyone who wants to work full time and is capable of performing the job. The jobs involved will defined by local community organizations and non-profit sector organizations in a variety of service sectors and will be comprised of work that creates valuable outcomes fulfilling the public purposes of the United States. I promise to vote Yes on any motion to report such a bill out of any committees I serve on, and I also promise to vote Yes on any procedural motion facilitating a floor vote on such legislation, and to vote NO on any motion blocking a floor vote on such legislation.
And for Senate candidates:
– I promise to vote No in January 2013 on any set of rules for organizing the Senate which provides for unlimited debate without or without rules for shutting off unlimited debate through cloture. In other words, I promise to vote No on any set of rules continuing the practice of the Senate filibuster. I make this promise because I realize that without the routine rule of the majority in matters of debate and procedure in the Senate, all the previous promises I’ve made would be empty promises because a majority of Democrats in the Senate would not be sufficient to keep the conditional promises I’ve made earlier.
This simple list of promises, conditional only on winning a majority in both Houses will most likely persuade the unemployed and the under-employed that when the Democratic Party says that it will be fighting to fix the economy to lower unemployment, that it means what it says about ending the unemployment problem. It will also persuade seniors that the Democratic Party isn’t planning to, and won’t sell them out in the next two years by making a “grand bargain” either after the election, or in the next Congressional term to cut the social safety net for the sake of bipartisanship. So, these promises should win for the Democrats two constituencies in this election which have been eluding them and the President: an undivided working class, which will, at least temporarily, come home to the Democratic Party; and the senior demographic, a remaining bastion of Republican support that is ripe for the taking due to Republican attacks on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Democrats, including the President, talk about a long- and even medium-term deficit and debt reduction problem, that doesn’t exist. For better or worse, that is seen as code for selling out the safety net, and refusing to deficit spend to create jobs or extend unemployment benefits and food stamps to those who need them. People now mistrust Democrats on safety net and employment issues, even though they still trust them more than Romney/Ryan and Republican candidates generally.
In order to remove mistrust and to swing seniors and working people strongly enough into the Democratic camp to regain control of Congress, I urge Democrats to make and keep these promises: direct, unequivocal commitments with no qualifications saying essentially “we know that we are talking about your bread and butter with these promises, and under no conditions will we vote to take away any of your bread and butter and give more to the rich! This we solemnly promise! Hold us to it in 2014!
(Cross-posted from New Economic Perspectives.)




51 Comments

I think you meant to say that the dems need to make some more strong Lies to Amerikan fools who believe in them. It’s always worked in the past and should push them over the top again.
Agree, the President could and should double down and call for elections of Democrats instead of Repubs in the House because w/o such, his reelection will be for naught.
He should also re-invoke the single-payer health care, climate initiatives, and labor law strengthening proposals that got him elected the first time. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Perhaps you don’t remember, but we did that in 2008. The democrats had the HOR by almost 40 votes, 59 senators, and the White House. The last time the republicans had that lop sided a majority was 1923. With far less Bush – hardly a genius – did whatever the hell he wanted to do. This massive, unanimous, and ignoble betrayal means for me 2010 was the last time I will ever vote for a democrat in any office. It should be clear to anyone who is awake that the only path now is the long one of supporting a third party.
I think there’s a reason why these candidates don’t want to make hard commitments. That’s because it’s much harder for a Congressman or Senator to back out of them once made. They know it could mean defeat. Those who haven’t served a long time don’t want to lose because a term or two won’t get them a very good lobbying job or an obscenely lucrative post with the Pharma. You need a decade or so in Washington for that. So I think most of the people who make these promises will keep them, just as many of the Rs have kept Grover Norquist’s tax pledge.
What happens if 100 Democratic candidates make these promises and are elected? Then we get a surprise result in the election, Democrats get back the House and 100 of them have made hard commitments that people will try to hold them too and that forbid them to do a grand bargain. Then Obama will have lost 100 votes he can normally count on. You also have the tea partiers from Republican safe districts who will have commitments never to raise taxes and some of whose constituents won’t appreciate cuts to Medicare and SS either.
I think that if we have this situation, then we are much more likely to get a a grand bargain voted down than not. At this point, that’s what I want to defeat. People who think the way I do obviously need 4 more years, at least, to break the grip of the plutocracy on the throat of America. Meanwhile, I’d like them to be able to as little damage as possible, and that means as few right-of-center compromises as we can get, in the short run.
I kept the promises to just a few because I wanted to avoid arguments among “progressives.” For example, a full payroll tax holiday for employees and employers is a very effective measure I didn’t propose because it requires extended discussion of how SS ought to be funded. For the same reason, I didn’t want to push Medicare for All in these promises. My view is save the safety net now. get jobs for everyone with full fringe benefits including access to Medicare for those in the JG. Then come back in 2014 with new promises, including Medicare for All.
Also, I don’t expect anything from Obama. He wants to do the grand bargain. I don’t even know if he really wants a D House, especially one where 100 people will refuse to vote for the GB under any circumstances.
Ah, yes, I remember it well. No hard commitments from the Ds; and also no commitment to end the filibuster. That’s why I formulated this as high profile promises that must be kept. We want something as strong as Grover Norquist’s commitments to bind these people.
What a nice, conservative Social Democratic platform. I would certainly support all of those planks, even if they do ignore the root cause of our problems, which is the fact that capitalism just no longer WORKS for most Americans, not to mention most other human beings.
Unfortunately, your plank has no place in the Democratic Party platform. You sound like a real Social Democrat. I’m further to the left, myself, but the Democratic Party has left you, dude. Stop chasing after it, it’s a corporatized mutant beast which must be destroyed.
Why don’t you switch over to the Greens? I think they would be a better fit for you and your conscience. Trust me, I’m a former lifelong Democrat. It feels really liberating when you support a third party with which you actually agree on most things.
I’m going to rec your post because you have some good ideas in there, not because I agree with you on turning the Democratic Party around. That’s quixotic at best. No offense intended, just the way I see it.
I know a lot of my friends here, won’t like this piece, since it seems to be in support of the two-party system.
However, my approach here is purely tactical. If any Democrats who want to win pursue it, and if they are successful, then the next two years will be marginally better than the previous two in my estimation, and we will lose less of the safety net.
My continuing approach would then be to work to make the Democrats even stronger in the next election, and to try to make the R party so weak that it splinters. If that happens the D Party will swell so large with people who diverge so much ideologically, that there will be a chance for a viable anti-corporatist faction to either grab control and then splinter the D Party, or if they fail to gain control to split off from the D party, and either form a new anti-corporatist major Party or join the Greens.
This last can’t be accomplished in the last 45 days of the 2012 campaign. So at this point, I am for electing as many Democrats as possible, especially the ones who will resist the corporations, at least to some degree. That doesn’t mean that I, myself, will vote Demo in this campaign. Since VA is a swing state, I’ll probably vote for Obama and for Tim Kaine. But since my CD is solidly Dem, I’ll vote for the Green Party here. I’m not telling people how to vote in this piece and I’m very favorable to Green Party voting generally. However, I still want D Party candidates to make these commitments, because I don’t want a Republican House again, and I certainly don’t want the two Houses and the presidency occupied by Rs.
That’s a logical argument, and makes sense from a tactical point of view. I must disagree with you strategically, however.
It is not the Republicans who should splinter(though my dark side would LOVE that), it’s the Democrats. The DLC must be isolated in their own tiny political party with no real influence.
It is the rest of the Democrats who need to go in a new direction. Let the DLC keep the Democratic Party label. Then the Democrats will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs pretty quickly.
A new political party, or coalition of political parties willing to run as a united popular front can then achieve enormous political power in just a few years. This has happened before in other countries, and since I do not believe in American exceptionalism because I really am an American patriot in my own way, I believe it can happen here.
I think that’s doable. But it can’t be done by anything that helps increase the lifespan of the Democratic Party as it is today.
I knew that you had more analysis, I was priming the pump.
I need to think about the Job Guarantee. Sounds fair, but I want to pick and choose my job; not sure if guaranteed garbage man, or make work jobs gets us there. Would probably have to nationalize the elderly health care industry or some infrastructure of similar scope.
It appears the Dems have a chance to nationalize this election to regain the House with down ticket pressure building on these races. If Dems would just use your first recommendation, to show themselves as the clear protectors of the safety net, they could fracture the Rep party permanently in the next 45 days.
If they broke the Rep lock on the over 65 vote, then you could rebuild the FDR left.
The last reliable estimates I have seen say that the Democrats will pick up to 4 Senate seats and at LEAST 8 House seats. However, many of the freshman Teabagger Republicans who defeated incumbent Democrats in 2010 are in serious trouble. That is, they are rapidly sliding in the polls, from up to 15% leads down to 6% or less.
There’s over 25 of those seats alone, in addition to the 8 the Dems are sure to win. A Democratic House in 2013 IS possible. Not probable at the moment, but Romney has screwed up so badly and so often. He just doesn’t look “presidential.” This trend will accelerate during the debates.
Lots of the Teabagger Congresscritters sound just like Romney when it comes to wealth and class. Because they actually are or are well on their way to being there and think that’s a good thing. They BELIEVE in the rightness of their cause and in the reward of that rightness, which is more money and more power.
And they frequently say so. That will not increase their chances of winning; quite the contrary. If they are identified with Romney, they are in some deep dinosaur feces.
The Democrats can pick up 30 seats in the House. I’m not predicting this, but it is possible. I hope they succeed.
Then, when they don’t deliver, again, maybe their supporters will start peeling off in more positive directions.
letsgetitdone–
Thank you for this diary. Recommended.
You say, “My view is that the Democrats need to make some strong promises to the voters, conditional on those voters returning the Democrats to majority control of both Houses of Congress. Here’s my list of promises Democratic candidates for office should make to voters to ensure a return to a majority in both Houses of Congress.”
Truthfully, it doesn’t matter, now. This administration has broken trust with many Americans, especially “swing seniors and working people” you reference above. Those groups would be foolish to believe any promises coming from Obama.
For the past (almost) four years, he has literally thrown money at corporations, the wealthy, small businesses–in other words, “his base.” Tell me, please, anything of significance (and spare me the ACA, or the “Lilly Ledbetter” Fair Pay Act) that he has done for those who are the most vulnerable, and who have been hit the hardest by the “Great Recession.”
MAH
Eh? Nice ideas, and I can agree with you.
Color me extremely cynical. People can say what they like about how the “Republicans” are obstructive (they are), but Obama has proved over & over that he hates, destests, loathes and despises anything that has the slightest wiff of “populism” to it. Obama ia corporate animal through and through. He sent forth his mouthpieces over & over to punch the hippies & put us in our place.
Last night I watched a tiny segment of Ed Schulz on MSNBC (a real rarity bc I find ALL of those shows a big fat snore & utterly uninformative). He interviewed Bernie Sanders bc Bernie had authored and/or signed a letter to Obama pretty much begging Obama to come out and promise that he wouldn’t fuck over Soc Sec & Med.
I just laughed my ass off. In 2008, Candidate Obama LIED over and over that he’d “protect” Soc Sec & Medicare. Yet once in office, he put Pete Peterson on the Cat Food Commission to figure out how to rip off the 99% and carried on about entitlements as if the lazy slacker low-lifes simply sat around on their good-for-nothing butts “expecting a hand out.” The simple truth is that there are many ways to “fix” Soc Sec & Medicare, not gut them. But I sure don’t see Obama doing that.
So what if we end up with 100% of the House and 100% of the Senate as “Democratic” with Obama in the White House??? We’ll still be in the poo, and the corporations got us by the short ‘n curlies. Won’t make a bit of difference.
However, my extremely cynical negativity aside, carry on. I guess anything’s worth a shot these days. You have some good ideas. I just don’t see the DLC Dems giving a rat’s patoot about ‘em. JMHO, of course.
I got a fundraising email from Maria Cantwell that said the Republicans were certain to demand cuts to Social Security and Medicare and that therefore I should send her money so that she could make Warren Buffett pay more taxes. Maria offered this argument without a detectable trace of irony and I did not send her money.
If Democrats control the government, Medicare and Social Security will be Cut. Demcorats will not support progressive goals in any area, domestic or foreign. On the other hand, if the Republicans are in control, it will be just the same.
LGID–
Thanks for the diary–recommended.
I’m sorry that I don’t share your sentiments, on this one. Truthfully, Mr. Blue and I “pray” for gridlock, and whatever election outcome that accomplishes that, is what we hope for.
In the first place, surely you don’t think that he would every say, “I promise to vote No on any bill that will cut spending on Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid during my term of office. I also promise to vote no on any procedural vote that would facilitate a vote to get such a bill out of any committee I serve on; or any procedural vote to facilitate a floor vote of any such bill. My promise includes any bill that would raise the age of eligibility for full Medicare benefits, or that would change the Social Security cost of living adjustment formula unless the change proposes increases to the COLA by taking into account the disproportionate Medical and pharmaceutical expenses seniors pay compared to people under the age of eligibility.”
Heck, LGID, the least of our worries is the decrease in the CPI-Index (resulting in lowering of the COLA, Cost of Living Allowance) for Social Security benefits.
The raising of the full retirement age to age 69 (from the current age 67, not yet in force, but already enacted in law, due to the Reagan Commission, would cost all future Social Security beneficiaries a 13-!4% cut in their monthly benefits, alone.
And the granddaddy of them all, “means-testing,” will really eviscerate the monthly benefit. Don’t forget, this is a cut that Obama has already agreed to give John Boehner, according to Matt Bai’s NYT Magazine article. This cut will amount to up to one-third of a recipients’s monthly check, for middle- and uppper-middle class recipients. And, even the poorest beneficiaries (unless that make less than $10,000, will have their monthly benefits cuts under “means-testing,” just not by as much.
This is all part of Bowles-Simpson’s so-called “balanced approach,” that the Democratic Party endorses. It IS the “Grand Bargain.”
Sorry, imo the feasible position for anyone “who’s retiring anytime soon” (and cares about receiving their full Social Security retirement benefit) is to vote strategically, and pray for gridloack. (You know, I’m sure, that a bi-partisan bill is ready to be presented the day after the election–it’s framework if “Bowles-Simpson.”
Thanks for all you do.
Blue
I think you just revealed the reason this tactic won’t work.
Good plan. Good discussion. I learn so much here on FDL.
I also like Bernie Saunders and some 30 fellow Democrats who have written to Obama directly asking for a firm statement that he will veto any bill containing cuts to Social Security including manipulations of the CPI such as “chaining.”
And I couldn’t agree more with the premise of demanding strong commitments from those running for office……. Yes I know they may not leave as much wiggle room. But look at what the wiggle has gotten us so far. Unbending commitment to the party agenda is precisely how the GOP has gained and prevails in Congressional power.
The Democrat running for Congress in my district is running on the promise to compromise and vote Republican when he likes their proposals better. He will get his ass kicked here in Georgia for sure but do you think he wouldn’t get it get it kicked in Massachusetts or California too? Lord! how did we get the bottom of the curve running for some of these offices.
To paraphrase a kid I once knew outside Phillie, “Promises ain’t worth nickles.”
Theres a problem with the jobs guarantee in that almost everyone tends to want to have the same jobs. Ones that pay well with little work. If pay is all the same, then people want the ones which require minimal effort. If we have jobs guarantee in construction, who gets to do the planning vs who gets to do the digging? Do they get paid the same? If they do, how would the people doing the digging feel? If they don’t how do you justify who gets what job? Do we create classes of welfare diggers?
The truth is yes, there are plenty of things that need to be done in this country, but doing those things require a lot of dirty work. Who really wants to do the dirty work? Who wants to pick crops from the field? Who wants to pick up garbage every day? Who wants to scrub graffiti off walls?
Ask for promises and you will get promises. Forever and ever.
The problem is these lying crooks — the Democrats even more so than the Republicans — have figured out that you will keep voting for them no matter what, as long as they can sell themselves as the lesser of two evils, and as long as the powers who own them and our electoral system keep it a “contest” between two evils. That does not require fulfilling a single promise to the people these days. Why bother? Whatever else it may be, a vote for stooges like Obama is also most certainly a vote for unaccountability.
The road to Hell, or at least the end of democracy, seems to be indeed paved with “good intentions” after all. Funny how the Goldman Sachses and JP Morgan/Chases of the world learned long ago that “good intentions” and unaccountability don’t really work when you want to influence government. Their tools have to deliver.
Agreed and rec’d.
I agree with everything you’ve said, but it’s not going to happen
Lawrence O’Donnell and William Greider tell the truth about Democrats and elections
A minute and twelve second youtube
Thanks for that link. Good stuff.
I feel like there’s a cart and a horse here in the wrong positions. Instead of the Dem’s making commitments to the people, why not the people calling out Obama on his words that Romney attacked him for (unwittingly, because Romney did not have the brains to understand them or used them stupidly.)
The Occupy people have done more than their share. Where are the people that Obama says is needed to “change Washington from the outside.”? If the Dems experience victories because of Romney’s stupidity, why not call them out to use it the way we need. Fuck their under-the-table gifts to Wall Sreet. Their promises don’t mean shit.
OK, I admit I don’t know how. I’m just trying to get the horse pointed in the right direction.
I agree. The founders set this thing up as a bi-cameral government and there’s no room for third parties unless one of them collapses. I sure know which one I’d prefer to collapse.
We DO have a new party: the Tea Party, which we needed like hole in the head.
Voting green is going to get US Romney and nothing to work with. And, I doubt we have time to allow the capitalists to destroy the environment AND come back via revolution or waiting for a third party to get strong enough to win the government.
Sorry for the “sloppy” comments. Here’s the corrections:
*Should be: 13-14% cut in their monthly benefits, alone.
*This statement: “This cut will amount to up to one-third of a recipients’s monthly check, . . .” should be
“This cut, taken with the CPI-Index change, which lowers the COLA, and the 13-14% cut due to raising the FRA (full retirement age), will come to a reduction in monthly benefits of approximately 36%, for some beneficiaries. (The very lowest income beneficiaries, are not as severely impacted by “means-testing,” as are working class, lower-middle class, middle-class, etc.)” (They do, however, have a new requirement imposed upon them. Their “vesting period” changes from 10 years, to 30 years (as was done in Mexico, when their system was reformed.) As a matter of fact, the reform is VERY similar to the Mexican model of the 1990′s. This may be one of the reasons that many Mexican nationals have left Mexico. We have an agreement Mexico (and many other countries) in which folks who meet the “40 quarter vesting period,” are eligible to collect Social Security benefits from the US, even if and when they return to their home countries.
Other than NAFTA, I have to believe that the Mexican “reform” in the ’90′s, is one of the factors that many Mexicans consider before coming to the US. (It will be interesting to see if this slows down immigration–legal and illegal–once austerity measures, and Social Security “reform” has been carried out, here.
Apologize for the other “punctuation” typos, etc. A bad day, I guess. :-)
Blue
Wish I could think of some logical response to persuade you you’re wrong, but you aren’t. The Democrats At The Top have never really cared if they are in power or not – they are part of the One Percent, after all, and what helps the Republicans helps them. I also agree that it is going to be difficult to get a third and fourth party to offer a real threat to the One Big Money Pary, but until that happens, we remain enslaved to the Corrupt People at the top
Good stuff, LGID.
The Republican Party as it now stands should split. Its tea party parts are incompatible with any semblance of rationality. I said in my reply that the Democrats should split too. I don’t think the DLCers are Democrats. To me they are just corporatists, who called themselves Democrats because they could take power that way at a particular point in our history. So, I agree with you that they should be isolated; but I don’t think they can be isolated in a small party, because they have more in common with the corporatist wing of the Rs. In view of this, I think that during the process we’re talking about a Party will emerge out of both majors ad will work under the No Labels/AmericansElect flags representing a Petersonian political position. When that happens the DLCers will go there. The relationships have already been forged. If they get pressure from Anti-corporatists; I think they’ll leave the D Party with pleasure to the Green New Dealers.
Please see the JG Posts in Randy Wray’s MM Primer and the various references he gives especially the ones to Pavlina Tcherneva’s work. See also this piece of mine for more references, and see here for discussion.
Also, JG jobs are not make work. They will be real jobs and there would be choices if MMT ideas are correctly implemented in the program.
Could be. But I don’t see them picking up seats in the Senate unless they do what’s suggested above. Also, I don’t see them getting a wave election in the House without stronger commitments of the kind outlined above. But we’ll see about these hinches.
Why should I tell you? I agree with you. Nevertheless, I also think that the advice I’ve given above would get Democrats the indicated results, and I also think that commitments made very specifically are much harder to break for Congresspeople and Senators than they are for the President. The President gets coverage for almost anything he does. There are some things that look pretty good to people and some things that look pretty terrible, and the President can spin, spin, spin continuously and in the run up to the next election. So, it’s hard to focus on one thing. Also, the President is term-limited so in the second term, the President doesn’t have to worry about promises made. But Senators and Representatives are not in the same boat. If they make a promise about the bread and butter of people over 65 and they don’t keep the commitment; they’ll totally lose that group in the next election. I don’t think people who are running again will risk that.
I agree Obama lied about SS and Medicare; but Obama is not every D Representative and Senator and also Obama never promised using the language of these pledges. He always left wiggle room. I’ve left no wiggle room, and I think that if they don’t keep their pledge then they will be gone. But we would know soon, in any case. If they go through with getting rid of the filibuster on the first day of the new Senate session then we will know that they will keep their commitments. And if it’s clear that they won’t, then we can begin to work against their re-election in the beginning of January 2013.
Maybe so. But try to reply to Cantwell with a message like this one:
I’d contribute to your campaign if you made these promises:
http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2012/09/21/promises-for-america/#respond
As it is, I can’t be sure YOU won’t cut my SS, Medicare, and the Medicaid I may someday need.
Why would I contribute to someone who might do that?
I think it’s time for YOU and other Democrats to act like Democrats and get over the false idea that there is a deficit/debt problem. There is none, and when the public finally learns that, as it one day will, the Democrats will never be forgiven if they support this totally unnecessary Grand Bargain nonsense, the President is so taken with!
See: http://www.correntewire.com/debating_the_debt
I don’t think there will be gridlock, on the Grand Bargain, Blue. Obama’s got it set up too well to use shock doctrine to get it done. The above commitments would take away the ability to use shock doctrine. The Senate would not have the filibuster, meaning Democrats would not have their favorite excuse for failing to pass a budget. In the House, they’d have a majority. Obama would not be running again in 2016, so no one has to worry about his re-election. On the other hand the Ds in the House will have to worry about re-election from the first day. If they owe their majority to promises like those made above, they would feel constrained to pursue and when the President pressured them, they could say sorry sir, I made promises, and YOU don’t have to run again.
I think what we have to realize is that the President’s power in the second term begins to dissipate on the first day of the new congressional session. He’s a lame duck. He can lead if he honors the commitments his Party has made; but if he goes against them, his power to retaliate is reduced as the days pass in his second term.
That’s the next step, Ludwig. It doesn’t have a thing to do with the first step. Ds will find that attractive if they need to take it to get elected or re-elected. They’ll worry about the second step only later. But by then we’ll be asking them for a new set of promises.
That’s what I’m saying. We need to force them into specific commitments. No wiggle room has to be our motto!
Sure they are; but only of they’re very specific. No wiggle room!
Please read the references I gave on the job guarantee. The issues you raised are treated there. There won’t be a top-down program with a lot of jobs that are obnoxious to people. The people wanting jobs will help to define the jobs there will be as will people from the nonprofit communities.
We’ve never really required specific promises from them. We’ve always left them wiggle room. Try it my way. It will work, or in the next election they really will be gone!
Thanks, wigwam.
Didn’t say it would happen. Just offering device on how Dems can lock up close elections. If they don’t want to that because they won’t make these commitments, then they can just take their chances on losing to the rightist numbskulls they’re running against.
You can get the horse moving in the right direction by putting a bridle on it. That’s what these specific commitments are. And don’t tell me it doesn’t work. The Republicans have already proven that it does with their no tax increase pledge.
Right! We have to at least stop the move toward plutocracy in this election.
Thanks. See reply above.
Right, but if we can bind the Ds at the bottom with specific promises, then it becomes harder for the leadership to control them. In fact, if the leaders don’t go along with the promises the rank and file have made, then their position as leaders is threatened. That’s what Boehner has been facing in the House. WE need to make Pelosi and Hoyer fear that too.
Thanks econobuzz. I’d propose the full MMT program, but there isn’t enough time remaining for people to understand that, so this simplified version will have to do!
LGID–
I appreciate what you’ve written, and am in agreement with pretty much everything you’re recommending. I guess my problem is, that I just simply can’t see much, if any, of it happening. (Mr. Blue and I are voting third party for the first time this November. For years, we were Democratic Party activists, as late as Dean’s run for President.)
But, about six months in O’s presidency (and we saw him run to the right, as fast as he could go), we threw our hands up, and said, “No more.” I suppose I should apologize for always throwing a web blanket on things, so I will.
Your ideas and analysis are great, that’s not the problem. Guess I just need to work on being more optimistic. :-)
Thanks for all your effort.
Blue
Excellent strategy! I can think of only three flaws:
1) The “Democrats” won’t read this post.
2) The “Democrats” won’t make such promises, and
3) The “Democrats” won’t keep such promises.
Other than that, it’s a winner!
(Hope the snark doesn’t sound too mean-spirited; you know I love your work, especially on platinum coinage, right?)
That’s OK, VS. I’m used to Dems doing 1, 2, and 3. But I just keep on keeping on. I’ll do third party when it seems reasonable. As I think I said above I’ll vote for Green candidate running against Jim Moran in the VA 8th.
Thanks, Blue. Don’t know if I’m really an optimist. Maybe just a fatalist.