Tweet
With 76 members, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest within the Democratic Party
As the largest caucus of Democrats on Capitol Hill, the Progressive Caucus has heavyweight size but flyweight punch.
During the last four years, its decisive footwork has been so submissive to the White House that you can almost hear the laughter from the West Wing when the Progressive Caucus vows to stand firm.
A sad pattern of folding in the final round has continued. When historic votes come to the House floor, party functionaries are able to whip the Progressive Caucus into compliance. The endgame ends with the vast majority of the caucus members doing what Obama wants.
That’s what happened on the first day of this year, when the “bipartisan” fiscal deal came down. Widely denounced by progressive analysts, the bill passed on the House floor by a margin of 44 votes – with the Progressive Caucus providing the margin. Out of 75 caucus members, only seven voted against it.
Over the years, we’ve seen that President Obama is willing – even satisfied – to be rolled by Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. But that’s just part of the problem. We should also come to terms with the reality that the Progressive Caucus is routinely rolled by the president.
A two-step prototype hit the ground running in September 2009 when Progressive Caucus co-chairs sent a public letter to Obama on behalf of the caucus – pledging to vote against any healthcare bill “without a robust public option.” Six months later, on the House floor, every member of the Progressive Caucus wilted under pressure and voted for a healthcare bill with no public option at all.
Since then, similar dynamics have persisted, with many Progressive Caucus members making fine statements of vigorous resolve – only to succumb on the House floor under intense pressure from the Obama administration.
We need Progressive Caucus members who are progressives first and loyal Democrats second, not the other way around. When the party hierarchy cracks the whip, they should strive to halt the rightward drift of congressional legislation, not add to it.
In the new session of Congress, the Progressive Caucus – with 72 members – retains major potential. It often puts out solid position papers like the recent Budget for All. And its leadership includes some of the sharpest progressive blades in the House. Congressmen Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva just won re-election as caucus co-chairs, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee just became the caucus whip.
Still, none of the more than half-dozen Progressive Caucus leaders were among the seven caucus members who voted against the New Year’s Day fiscal deal – and more serious capitulation may soon be on the near horizon.
Early this month, right after the fiscal deal, the Progressive Caucus put its best foot forward by issuing a “Progressive Principles for the Next Deal” statement that vowed to “protect” Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits. But those programs will be in jeopardy before spring in tandem with votes on “sequestration” and raising the debt ceiling.
The results are likely to be very grim unless members of the Progressive Caucus are truly prepared – this time – to stand their progressive ground. Without an attitude adjustment, they’re on track to help the president betray Social Security and other essential parts of the social compact.
On a vast array of profound issues – ranging from climate change and civil liberties to drone strikes, perpetual war and a huge military budget – some individual progressives in Congress introduce outstanding bills and make excellent statements. But when the chips are down and minority leader Nancy Pelosi offloads presidential weight onto House Democrats, the Progressive Caucus rarely shows backbone with cohesive action.
What we have witnessed so far is surrender in stages – a chronic confluence of conformity and undue party loyalty, with brave talk from caucus members habitually followed by contrary votes on the floor of the House of Representatives. From the grassroots, progressives must mobilize to pressure every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to let them know we will hold them accountable.
Photo by Talk Radio News Service under Creative Commons license
83 Comments
Stop voting for democrats who constantly fold (e.g. Democratic Senate vote 98-0 for NDAA 2) and vote Green or other 3rd party. Otherwise why expect change? They don’t call it the Uniparty for nothing.
Unless you show the ability and will to punish, nobody respects you. The GOP respects the Tea Party, because they have a proven ability to take down congress critters in primaries.
We really need to move on here, only stupid people would ask such a question. So yes, of course, enabling Obama’s rightward moves.
Better question: What should we do about it?
I just wrote a diary addressing the problems of the Progressive Parties, and no Progressives responded. When are progressives going to do the work that will give voters a viable option?
What to do? I agree with wigwam. Also, as it turns out, there’s another dynamic which played out in the Republican party, also in the Tea Parties’ favor, and that is that individual leaders, who felt they needed the support of the Tea Party Republicans in future battles to retain their leadership positions, started adopting some of the Tea Party positions. IIRC, Lindsey Graham was such an individual.
Now, the Republican old guard ejected some Tea Party’ish Republicans from chairmanship positions, recently. But that setback for the Tea Parties also signals the fact that they are a factor in the balance of power in Washington.
I find the mathematics of twisting Congress’ arms, via primary threats, to be compelling. See my recent diaries IF NY State Get Fracked, Whose Fault Is That? (+ Bonus IQ Test) and Twisting Your Congress Critters’ Arm – A Goldilocks’-Sized First Step In Domination by the Electorate (Short Version)
Definitely, see also Jane Hamsher’s brilliant diary, Bernie Sanders to Primary Obama? Don’t Make Me Laugh. In progressive areas, due to gerrymandering, there is little chance of a progressive Democrat losing in a general election, even if he/she was in a bruising primary fight. This is true of whether the candidate is the incumbent, or whether the candidate was a young Turk.
Kudos to Norman Solomon for writing this diary. The time to start planning for Tea Party level electoral aggressiveness is now. This diary reminds us of the need for such aggressiveness.
First off, Obama was “Right” from the beginning. See e.g. Paul Street’s “Obama As Predicted.”
http://www.zcommunications.org/obama-as-predicted-by-paul-street
Secondly, the point of the “Progressive Caucus,” as Lance Selfa pointed out in “The Democrats,” is to allow “progressives” to think they have a “seat at the table” while the real “leaders” do as they please. Please see my review of Selfa’s book:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945529/-Book-Review-Selfa-s-The-Democrats
Lastly, Norman Solomon is himself complicit with the right-wing uniformity of both Congress and the White House. What makes him an authority on the “Left” all of a sudden?
The Democratic Party, has demonstrated time and again, that the only principles they will steadfastly follow are those that benefit big corporations and powerful people. Sorry Norman, Obama is not “rolled” by the Republican leaders, he *is* a Republican leader, albeit one with a “D” on shirt. The fact that the Democratic Party supports him every step of the way makes him the most effective Republican leader, to borrow from Glen Ford of BAR.
As to the Progressive Caucus, when it comes to we, the people, there are always excuses, and, rubbing salt into the wound, the excuses always are wrapped up in phrases designed to make it seem if they somehow had no choice. “Succumbed to pressure”, my ass.
Ask yourself this: Why do they never “succumb” to pressure from the constituents they are supposed to represent and whom they consistently beg money from?
The old saying is true and actions damn well do speak louder than words. In fact, when it comes to politics, words mean absolutely nothing as Obama proves over and over and over. Actions are the only thing that count. We consistently and continuously get no actions from the Democrats, only words and pleas for donations.
It is a complete waste attempting to change the Democratic Party from within. Hats off to who originally said it, but another saying is also true: “The Democratic party is where progressives go to die”.
Folks, if you are not already doing so, find another party that fits your ideals and principles and support them. Give them a chance, you have nothing to lose. Cut the Democratic party loose.
For the next two years, the betrayals will continue and when midterms come around, people like Solomon will crawl out of the woodwork to tell us that we simply must support the Democrats or the evil Republicans will do unspeakably horrible things. Suckers!!!
Not sure why you say this?
Hi Norman, thanks for posting this.
What we encountered during the health care fight — and since — is that these people tend to be from very heavily gerrymandered districts, as you well know. And since they face no meaningful challenge from an opposition party, ever, they never really have to seriously run for office. People in their districts tend to love them and get very defensive of any criticism, and circle the wagons any time anyone does.
In short, they’re a pretty unaccountable caucus. They paid zero price for their health care defection, and at no point since the supplemental vote of 2009 have they even threatened to unify in opposition to neoliberal policy coming out of the White House.
Still, it always makes me happy when people take a clear-eyed look at their loyalty to party over principles, and stop blaming all our problems on the Blue Dogs or the GOP. As you say, their inability to exercise or wield power could have serious consequences regarding issues they purport to care about in the upcoming budget fights.
The President talks left and walks right, and at this point in time only the most obtuse among the American electorate could miss that glaringly obvious reality. No small measure of steaming bullshit shoveled out of the collective pieholes of the MSM helps not one whit in clarifying things, either. As for the Progressive Caucus? Go-along to get-along types…spineless, unprincipled creatures by definition.
Great post.
When push comes to shove, the so called progressives vote with Obama every time.
Jane, I suppose I’m one of those old Greens who noticed Solomon’s signature on this letter:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0723-09.htm
The whole effect of the “John Cobb” campaign in 2004 was to replace what could have been a serious Green Party candidate (Ralph Nader) with a nonserious one, and to make the Green Party into a nonserious party, which is what it has been since 2004 and is what it is now. I didn’t appreciate Solomon’s move here, nor did I appreciate the bogus gymnastics at the GP convention in Milwaukee wherein Cobb was “nominated.” There’s more documentation on that if you’d like to see it.
The effect of GOP gerrymandering has resulted in some House Dems districts being 80% dem or more.
House Dems needs to feel the pressure Tea Party house members feel!
So call Progressive House Dems need to know they will be primaried from the left, and they need to know they will probably lose.
If real progressives launch a successful primary againist one of these phony progressive house dems, the others would probably fall in line.
I guess they have been infiltrated by Obamabots, they need to develop a test to make sure those within caucus are not undermining it. It is better to have an ideologically pure small group than a large group made of gelatin, or centrists. Obama wants to have have a pliable progressive caucus, so he can use it to prove he has support among progressives. We can assume for the future that progressive caucus is nothing more than another Obama support group and count its votes for deals Obama wants passed.
This is why I have turned my back on the Democrats. I would threaten this elsewhere, and someone would sputter: “Bubutbut there are good ones! What about the good ones?” Yes there are some good people in office who are Democrats. But they are collectively as useless as tits on a bull. They do not act as a brake on the corrupt corporatist instincts of Obama and his “Democrats”, who are in fact Reagan Republicans. I don’t know why they don’t, and I don’t care anymore. Only a handful of the progressives I would guess are truly sincere about their differences with the BushCheney Democrats. The rest of the progressives are doing a leftier version of what Obama does from his centrist position: give some lip service to traditional Democratic progressive ideals, then promptly cave. (yes I know Obama is as likely to spout traditional Republican ideals as Democratic ideals, that’s why I say “from his centrist position”) This way they keep the party faithful believing they share their traditional Democratic values, that they care about Democratic constituencies, and they can get reelected in their districts. In fact they do not hold traditional Democratic values at all. They do not really believe in them. As Wellstone said, “If we don’t fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don’t really stand for them.” He was probably wrong about that though. The point of recognition may come for an individual here or there, but it never comes to the “we” of progressive Democrats. They are still voting and donating to a party that is now to the right of Ronald Reagan.
Expect nothing good from the Democrats and you won’t be disappointed. If you are a joiner type, find a third party closer to your beliefs. It doesn’t matter what the Democrats SAY they believe in, not even the progressive caucus. What they do is betray.
Why just primary them? Why not form another party to run candidates in general elections?
The right wing of the Democratic Party, to which most Democrats secretly belong, seems to think that it can indefinitely bully its rank-and-file into voting for Blue Dogs “or else the Republicans will win.” The Republicans thus serve as a foil for the Democrat Right.
Democrats don’t like to be reminded of the fact that four years ago they were crowing about how the Republican demographic was shrinking to just the South and the Great Plains, and that the only places in America which were growing more Republican were in Appalachia. In those 80% Dem districts you mentioned, the Republican demographic has already disappeared. Time to take advantage.
If you all just did the right thing and refused to vote for anyone who took even one dime of filthy corporate money then things would change overnight. But you all won’t, so just stop whining and be satisfied with the corrupt system that your “lesser of two evils” theory has given us.
“Over the years, we’ve seen that President Obama is willing – even satisfied – to be rolled by Republican leaders on Capital Hill. But that is just part of the problem. We should also come to to terms with the reality that the Progressive Caucus is routinely rolled by the president.”
Perhaps, “rolled”, when it is something the rolled are “satisfied” about, and even seem to “want”, is not quite the proper term, Norman?
If we see a pattern of “satisfaction” on the part of the “rolled”, then might we not realistically consider that the “rolled” are PLAYING a role, that they are engaged in PRETENDING to care, to stand for something, for reason, for justice, or for the genuine needs of the people? If it IS play-acting, which it does appear to be, then who, specifically, is pretending that it is genuine, that it is necessary and unavoidable “caving”, or “submission”, or “capitulation”?
Perhaps, just possibly, too many members of the Democratic Party are NOT worthy of trust, of holding positions of power?
Perhaps, both legacy parties are fully corrupt and engaged in kabuki to deceive the people, to defraud the people, to off-shore the jobs of the people and to use the name of the people to wage permanent war, to destroy the Rule of Law … and to enrich themselves in the process as they anticipate stepping through that revolving door?
Might that be possible? Might it be probable? Might it, in fact, be the case?
Might it be time to consider that the Democrats and the Republicans are equally destructive of participatory democracy, of civil society, and of the planet upon which we all depend for our survival?
Or, are you going to argue that we have no choice, that, all in all, the Democrats are “less evil”?
Is Black Agenda Report correct … are the Democrats merely the more effective evil, who everyone on the “left” is supposed to apologize for, and suggest that if WE try, just a little bit harder, that the Democrats, the “progressive” ones, will come to see the light and stand up to fight for what is truly right?
Sounds like the same old same old … however, let’s toss in some “hope”, add some “gumption”, and then stir it all around and, by gosh and by golly, THIS time things will be different.
Might it be possible, for those who believe such things, to compile a LIST of the good, the tried, the true Democrats, those who consistently stand up for the Constitution, for the people, for truth, for justice, for the Rule of Law.
From the “sound” of things, that wouldn’t be too long a list, not too difficult to create, and it would be extremely useful on many levels.
Who should be on that list?
I realize that no one will want to seriously consider such a list, but ain’t that what “gumption” is actually about, calling things, or people, what they really are?
Anybody care to do that?
Or are we all going to subscribe to the “view” that there is too much “pressure” to dare to do such a thing?
How about one name, just one?
Maybe two or three?
Is that too much to ask or expect?
Perhaps there wouldn’t be any agreement as to who should be on the list?
Yet, about now, it would be rather useful to see who might be on such a list.
Suggestions … anyone?
DW
As long as Money is the Blood of Politics? starting other parties is a complete waste of time.
Corporate Money can corrupt Green Parties also.
The USA govt. is control by two political parties right now.
You need to read about how the FBI attacked Occupy Wall Street? By Chris Hedges? Good Luck finding people seeking to be call terrorist by the USA Govt.
The best Real Democrats can do right now, is adopt the tactics of the Tea Party, which basically say, if you vote the wrong way, you will be primaried!
Keep In Mind, we also need to be realistic, we are seeking Dem Candidates that vote progressive 60% of time? if we find some that can vote progressive 80% of time Great!
Cassiodorus? the USA your dreaming about died a long time ago! When the FBI attacks a peaceful protest group like OWS, I doubt very strongly the two big parties are going to allow any other party at the table.
Progressives in congress – haven’t seen one in a long time. Talk is cheap, action is what counts – haven’t seen that in a long time either.
Recently, billmon wrote an interesting anfd thoughtful essay,” Lives of the Party, Looking Past Obama for a Progressive Democratic Coalition.”
It offers insights as to why the Democratic party moved to the right ["weakness of organized labor: the traditional powerhouse of progressive economic policy"] and how it might be tugged back to the left.
I am so ashamed of the progressive caucus. It should be renamed “caving caucus” in my opinion. Just like Obama, even Rep Ellison and Rep Grijalva make a lot of noise when it comes to progressive rhetoric, but these “so-called” progressive fold like a deck of cards and vote with the rest of the Democrats when it comes to voting for rightist policies. That’s way, I am no longer a registered Democratic. Didn’t even vote for the Democratic candidates (all, for president, House and Senate).
Yes!!! It is the unwillingness or inability to exercise the power we have. What more powerful base than the best interest and now demonstrably the will and wishes of the majority of the people?
Executing primary challenges on pretend-progressives would be a solid strategy, IMO. Progressives could take a lesson from the teabaggers in that sense, although the teabaggers have some very deep-pocketed donors to fuel their efforts, whereas the progressives do not. As I see it, that’s the main obstruction. Nor does all the idiotic back-biting among various progressives help the cause, either; in the end, the goals are pretty much the same, and whining about relatively insignificant details tends to screw up the overall process. Get on the same page, yo. Sheesh. This ain’t exactly rocket science.
Very soon the Progressive Caucus will be asked to support Obama’s agreement to cut ssi, medicare, and medicaid, sadly, despite the lip service they will display on tv they all will agree to the cuts. The democratic party has become the ultimate go along to get along party and not doing what the minority leader and the whip wants is viewed as not being a team player. The bright side of this will be we have a legitimate shot of getting them all out of office once they cast their votes. Any progressive who votes to cuts benefits for their constituents will be committing political suicide and we should not hesitate to primary as many of them as possible. We have to adopt Tea Party tactics if we want results.
Always enjoy your “take” on things.
Oh my (quoting Dick Enberg), this problem does have many facets. Certainly the lack opf progressiveness on the part of the progressives is a big part of the problem. The fact that the republicans seem to ba ablke to control the agenda when they are in the monority and yet the democrats cannot control the agenda when they are in the majority. The democrats invariably pass bad legislation while the republicans pass no legislation at all. UNless, of course, it benefits the 1% and passes even more money “up” the ladder.
NOw, as far as your “list” is concerned….may I assume dead people are excluded?
Well then, I got nobody.
You’re gonna need a bigger boat.
When subsets of citizens are primarily focused on gaining rights: voting rights, women’s rights, gay and transgender rights, ( insert your personal favorite here____________ ) their individual battles sacrifice a larger, macro war on overt, economic injustice. Progressives can claim their skirmishes recaptured the high moral ground while the economic elites can accurately claim they bought the whole damn mountain. From the corrupted gov’t, no less. Public funding of all elections, large and small, would create the building blocks to a much fairer representative democracy. And, the wealthy elites know this. Which is why the won’t let us have one. Buying a gov’t to protect your wealth and position ” by any means necessary ” is as American as AIG.
You say, “The bright side of this will be we have a legitimate shot of getting them all out of office once they cast their votes. Any progressive who votes to cuts benefits for their constituents will be committing political suicide and we should not hesitate to primary as many of them as possible.”
I very much doubt that there is a bright side to this. Barack Obama has, time and again, indicated and touted support for cutting Social Security. But, despite that, the naive Democratic base saw it fit to re-elect him and did not even feel that it was necessary for Obama to face a primary challenge. I am a huge pessimist when it comes to the Democratic party. Nothing short a very major event event is going to stop this rightward move of the Democratic party.
I like the idea but….. As Jane noted above these guys may be very well liked by their constituents such that no one, even a third party candidate, may have little chance to win. Still that bears pursuing. Even a losing challenge may cause these people to think twice.
Well put.
I suppose back in the good ol’ days, the fifties, sixties, and even the seventies, things were like this, I just didn’t notice it. I was young and as long as I had a cool car and dependable and semi-reasonable paycheck coming in I was satisfied with the status quo. But, moving along in age and along in decades to the eighties, nineties and now the new millennium, I’m more observant. Government of the people, by the people and for the peopls does indeed seem to have vanished. People say we have the best government can buy. But I disagree. We have the worst government money can buy beause the government exists now only answerable to and obligated to the buyers. NOT THE PEOPLE.
Indeed only two things will save us, campaign finance reform and term limits. UNderstand, in the old days they used to tar and feather corrupt politicians and ride them out of town on a rail. I’ve looked into that and decided we can’t do that anymore. Not because it’s cruel, just that, you can’t find enough tar and feathers anymore. Rails, I got.
Correction: Should be “best government MONEY can buy.”
Things really were different during the Vietnam War years. There was a militant anti-war group among the Democrats both within Congress and outside. (Look at the videos of the 1968 Democratic convention. Levels of dissension within the party that would be inconceivable today).
I would venture that the more expensive the election, even on the local level, the more corrupted the process and the more corrupted the outcome will be. The Kochs of the world are able to buy whole states ( Kansas ) and their politicians. You can find a nut, to amplify your insane policies, just as a blind squirrel finds one. By sniffin’ out a large, sparsely populated area, where seeing squirrels choose not to inhabit. Just look at the Red States. Wyoming, in our idiotic political scheme, has the same clout in the Senate as California. Not in a good way, either. The goal of Wyoming’s Senators is to block good policy and progress. The whole appears, and is, weaker than the parts. And the Kochs seem to be winning this silly back and forth.
“Perhaps, both legacy parties are fully corrupt and engaged in kabuki to deceive the people, to defraud the people, to off-shore the jobs of the people and to use the name of the people to wage permanent war, to destroy the Rule of Law … and to enrich themselves in the process as they anticipate stepping through that revolving door?”
Great comment in its entirety, DW. There is no ‘perhaps’ about this. Just look at what the Republicans are doing to get Hagel enshrined in Obama’s war machine ! There’s money in playing the bad guys, both in Hollywood and in Congress. And so frequently here, we see this stuff being addressed as if it was a legitimate political stand to be argued against. (They called him antisemitic?! I’m shocked, shocked I say!)
Gimme a break.
We have seen this play so many, many times. Isn’t it getting stale by now; isn’t it leaving a horrible taste in everyone’s mouths? They did this to shunt us into outfitting the mortgage bandits with holiday homes. They did it to get the Supremes who’d roll with the punches as well. They are doing it ‘left’ , ‘right’ , and ‘center’. Theater! Theater! Theater! Ignore that man behind the curtain!
[Special thanks to timesthree and cassiodorus also; great comments you guys.]
Yep, I thought of the victim of the small plane crash just days before his likely re-election….so no one.
What DW said @ 18
and what jedminsnbcko said @ 19
—————
If there is no political will or exercise of that will there is no power. Of what benefit is the progressive caucus? The size of the bloc and the voting record pretty much indicates that it amounts to only a label without substance.
Mighty good at fingering their worry beads, but not much else.
That is a particularly superb, and great, comment, as well, juliania.
Speaking of “bad guys” …
Those of us known as “the usual suspects” (you know who you are, friends) don’t regard what we do as a “business”, and I doubt that any of us are getting wealthy from our efforts to encourage democracy, among other things. So, me ‘at’s off to those who labor from what amounts to love … love of life, love of this planet, love of humankind and all life forms.
Money is NOT the only measure of wealth, and rarely the measure of meaningful contribution.
Despite what certain “good” and wealthy “progressives” would have us “believe”.
What really matters … ain’t money.
The Divine Right of Money … ain’t!
DW
You are so right about that. I think that when the vote is taken to cut benefits it is going to move this nation and that will be the time to get rid of these people. Lets start with Klobuchar in Minnesota. We need to recruit a Wellstone to take her out up here.
Thank you, DW. Yes, love is where it is at – especially for my little cluster of adorable grandkids. We cannot keep on indulging in theatrics, for theirs and for the world’s sake.
Thanks for reading KOS, so I don’t have to. Billmon is always worth reading, although he kind of lost me on this one.
This is a great post, understated if anything. The Progressive Caucus has proven to be worthless over and over again. Always cave, don’t even move the needle on legislation. Same MO as Barry. Big talk, little stick.
I really don’t see any hope there. Or change.
Putting Social Security into the mix is the real tell on Obama, Pelosi, and the Dems in general. It’s not part of the current fiscal crisis, but it is part of the effort by both parties to roll the New Deal back to the age of the robber barons on behalf of Pete Peterson, and the rest of the cocks, er, Kochs.
So, the SS Trust Fund holds government debt in bonds (you know, the ones backed by the full faith and credit of the U S Government)sufficient to pay full benefits for twenty years or more. And we all know how sacred the “full faith and credit” are, and how any downgrade of the US credit rating would send the bond market into freefall, driving up bond rates destroying the international financial markets. (Not. At all. See last time, zero bound, Krugman, etc.)
So the coming strategy depends on convincing people that the interests of private bond holders are sacred and inviolable and in mortal danger, while also convincing people that the bonds held by the SS Trust fund are not real. Not really real.
Count on Barry, Nancy and the “progressives” to assist in the accomplishment of this seemingly impossible task.
As Billmon quoted from Woodward’s “The Agenda,” ” (you) may recall the scene where Bob Rubin informs the president that the plan is for him to kneel down and suck Wall Street’s dick (instead of the other way around), and an exasperated Clinton shouts: “I hope you’re all aware we’re the Eisenhower Republicans here!”
We’ve lost exasperation. And hope for change.
Democrats of whatever flavor are defined by their political allegiances.
The Democrat Party, like it’s twin, the Republican Party, is the party of wars of aggression from Tunisia to Indonesia. The Democrat Party favors Obama’s policies that lead to the mass murder of civilians and GIs in wars whose only aim is to procure resource hegemony for US multinationals.
The Democrat Party, like it’s twin, the Republican Party, is the party of union busting, attacking public unions (1) and busting the UAW, once the crown jewel of the AFL-CIO. (2)
The Democrat Party, like it’s twin, the Republican Party, is the party of $16 trillion dollar bailouts for the banksters and looters and austerity for workers, employed, underemployed and unemployed.
Politicians and reformers who participate in the Democrat party eventually become what they say they’re opposed to.
(1) http://labornotes.org/2012/09/chicago-teachers-head-toward-strike-democrats-turn-their-union
(2) http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/02/the-deal-that-saved-detroit-and-banned-strikes/
I belong to a third party already; haven’t seen the FBI at my door just yet. I want to belong to a better third party.
The trust fund is about taxes. The larger the fund the less the super rich have to pay. They agree with progressives that the fund should be even bigger. The size of the fund is the size of the tax bill the rich did not have to pay.
LOL
I’m gonna use that some time.
Yes, precisely. So the ’83 reform got workers to pay more in withholding so the wealthy could pay less in taxes. Now that the money borrowed has been spent, they want to invalidate the TF so they won’t have to pay higher taxes in interest and the draw down for benefit payments.
Unless, of course, they realize their real wet dream and get privatization of the TF. Which means basically it gets paid to them.
The U.S. House progressive caucus was established in 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus#History
Ironically, this was almost exactly the same time that the centrist Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) carried out its takeover of the party, placing two of its members, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, on the presidential ballot the following year.
In the decades before 1991, there were true progressives in the U.S. Congress, who did not feel it necessary to form a separate caucus. It is as if the formation of the Progressive Caucus was intended to cover the fact that there were no longer to be true progressives in Congress.
On philosophical grounds, there shouldn’t even be a progressive caucus. Caucuses are designed for particular groups or interests within the electorate. Progressivism (or liberalism, or socialism, or a rightist belief in a pure free market) is a basic ideological orientation. Creating a progressive caucus really means devaluing the cause of progressivism to that of a special interest.
be my guest ;-)
How about a regressive caucus? It can say in its charter that it’s “dedicated to the financing of luxurious McMansions on the newly-desertified Arctic Ocean coast for the rich .01% once it destroys the ecosystems of planet Earth through abrupt climate change.”
Yes, the President gets rolled by Republicans. And yes, the Progressive Caucus gets rolled by the President.
Now I ask you, how likely is it that these are two completely separate issues? Because if anyone still thinks they are, then they aren’t paying attention.
Everyone that ridicules the “two parties are working together but have to put on a show of difference to get away with it” as some sort of conspiracy theory either really aren’t paying attention, are really struggling with reality, or are blinded by loyalty. For the life of me, I don’t know how much more evidence is needed.
The last election should’ve closed any lingering doubts when the Republicans made no serious attempt whatsoever to defeat Obama. Romney would have won if they had. I could’ve ran his campaign and won.
Ask yourself this: “Why would a party that has proven it’s willingness to support third parties in the past as a way to siphon off D votes not go all in on third party support this year when the left was clearly Obama’s weak link and open to such a action?” They could’ve spent 1/10 of what they spent on their entire election in ten swing states further dividing the left by propping up Jill Stein and won the election going away. Yet they didn’t.
I’ve come to think of politicians in the Groucho Marx way: “I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member.” Anyone eager to run for office should be, on that alone, seriously suspect.
Money is the measure of paying one’s bills and I’m tired of people disparaging income as if it’s a trivial matter. It is not.
You should remember that during the attempted ouster of Hugo Chavez in 2002 the Int’l AFL-CIO, under then President Lane Kirkland, supported the coup attempt. This was the obvious working of the oil field workers, refinery workers, port workers, etc,; in league with our Big Oil Gov’t at the time. I harbor no illusions about the wealthy, highly paid unionists being on the side of the SEIU or AFSCME when push comes to shove. As William Holden said to Ernest Borgnine in The Wild Bunch, ” $10,000 dollars cuts a lot of family ties. ” Adjusted for inflation that’s probably $70-90,000 in today’s coinage. But the larger point remains the same. A small group of well placed wolves can kill a lot of confused sheep.
“…a successful primary againist one of these phony progressive house dems…”
The current democratic party is more a cult of personality than a true political party grounded in any sort of ideals or principles.
Test this hypothesis by asking any Obama voter what the democratic party stands for. Most won’t understand the question.
personally, i think it’s too late and the one world “government” by the superrich is here to stay for a while.
that said, if you’re the hopeful type, spend your time organizing initiatives and ballot movements to do what they did in CA, and end the practice of gerrymandering. sort of amazing what neutral citizens were able to accomplish there, no?
also: note how the interwebs are a curse and a blessing. you know what is very noticeable about sites like this one? our age. where are the teens? i was politically active when i was young; why don’t we have lots of those here? i’m not trying to say the people here do a poor job; this is an excellent blog. but i can’t help but note i’m probably one of only a handful of people who have an electronica collection. and that’s dating myself compared to the 25 and under set.
finally, life at 10$/hr is harsh, and doesn’t leave for a lot of time for political activity. the death of the labor movement in this country, along with the decline of quality public education, is what is making all this horror possible. recognize we’re entering into a new “lost generation” and all that entails.
i don’t mean to sound hopeless. but i agree with a friend of mine (we were just talking about this yesterday) it will be at least ten years before a new, probably unpredictable political movement rises in this country and demands and enacts reform. if not revolution. so many of us are locked into a system that does not allow us to achieve such, right now.
I wonder how much influence this blog’s public option campaign had on Woolsey retiring, though? Let’s not forget that her retirement just after the CPC caved on healthcare left the seat open for which Norman Solomon ran in the newly open CA primary (I voted for him).
Honestly, I wish that more liberals with name recognition like Norman Solomon had joined us then when we could have had an impact on healthcare and by default more influence now with SSMM which now we will have even less thanks to the CPC caving on the PO.
I hope that Norman Solomon and other progressives will follow the leading thinkers of the left like those here at FDL and join our efforts in the moment in matters rather than continue to chide us for criticizing Obama.
I am not “disparaging income”, liberalarts.
I am flatly saying that money is not all that matters in a society that refuses to understand that EVERY economic system’s SOLE, rational, reasonable, human, and necessary purpose is to provide to ALL of a society’s members, those resources necessary to human existence.
In fact, “wealth” is ONLY created when natural resources are MADE into something useful.
The issue now, liberalarts, is that the “takers” have convinced the “makers” that real “work” involves cleverly robbing everyone else AND the planet of the means of rational, reasonable, and humane survival.
The matter is most definitely NOT trivial.
When “income” matches actual contribution, then, and only then, have we, each and every one of us, a genuine chance of survival.
Survival IS life … and I am not the first, nor shall I be the last, to suggest that the love of money, over everything else, is a damned evil and destructive thing … indeed, unchecked, it will destroy human life on this planet.
Money, of and by itself, is simply a means of exchange, based on the TRUST that it is backed by actual “wealth”, by LABOR, by the actual CAPACITY to MAKE useful things, to DO useful things and, may elephants and fleas help us, to SHARE those useful and necessary things.
“Income”, rational and reasonable, is necessary, while criminal fraud, permanent war, and the destruction of civil society are what “MONEY” currently is “about”, these days, that’s what big money is “doing” … because money, lots of it, you see, is considered to be “power”.
And when there is no conception of “enough”, when society cannot or will not protect itself from concentrations of wealth, of unfettered greed and concentrations of unrestrained power … then the future of humanity is most uncertain, and, at this time, we face our own extinction over the “trivial” matter of “money” … not “income” premised upon “enough”.
Now, liberalrts, should you still find disturbing my comments about the Divine Right of Money, as it is perceived, you need merely ignore them … as I shall, so long as I am able draw breath and am not rendered wholly incompetent by mental deterioration, continue to share my wee comments with those few who seem, apparently, to find some little value or possible merit in them.
That said, I consider that everyone ought to have “income” AND worthwhile endeavor sufficient to keep body and soul together, to continue, beyond that, to educate themselves and each other and to have opportunity of those re-creations of health, of conscience, and of consciousness necessary to well-being and amiable relations with and appreciation for all living things.
I wish that on you and on everyone else.
Peace and good fortune be yours, liberalarts.
DW
Are you Normon Solomon?
If so, I appreciate your posting here, but I’m disappointed in your last diary opining that those of us who are anti-Obama oppose the man himself instead of the policies of the man.
Also, as I mentioned in my post above, I wish that you had joined the campaign here at FDL to pressure the CPC on demanding a public option during the healthcare “debate”. Every time in the past that we have accepted the failure of the CPC makes future wins that much harder. That said, welcome to the fighting left.
“haven’t seen the FBI at my door just yet.”
And you won’t….until its too late.
It is for the defense of income that pwoggie enemies denied environmental doom. Does the comrade really understand the game she is playing?
Bingo
Hey! Norman…next election cycle fall back on your “old refrain”,vote for Dems cuz they are a little better than the GOP…..all the while rich legislators both Dems & GOP continue to wreak havoc on ordinary Americans.
Norman Solomon and the many like him are major parts of the problem folks & why we are in this shit pile.
Because wasn’t Solomon one of those telling voters that Obama had to have their vote, since the Republican Mitt Rmoney in the Oval Office would be worse.
Sooner or later, a person has to realize that the only way to avoid the dictates of the UniParty is to vote Third Party.
The Democratic Party is dead. It committed suicie a long time ago. Now it’s a zombie that makes fund raisng calls.
1972 the demodog were doa and your right just a money scam now days.
The Trust Fund is also about government debt. It is part of it. $2.7 Trillion of the the $13Trillion debt is the amount Soc Sec loaned to the General Fund, which pays interest on it. I heard Dean Baker say the interest is something like $60Billion a year.
If the Pete Peterson-types who are so against Soc Sec because of the alleged tax “burden” it places on people like him get their way, eventually that part of the debt will go away.
Private charity and families will take care of the elderly. ;-\
The current AFL-CIO and CTW leaderships are in bed with the Democrats. They’re a big part of the problem.
It is not out of the question though, that a new force, like the CIO in the 1930′s, will emerge from the organizing efforts underway, many of them autonomous and indigenous, like the emerging fight of Wal-Mart workers.
Nor is it unlikely that as the union left grows and the economy grinds on towards a deeper depression that some unions will break away and provide a basis for more mass organizing, as the UAW did for the CIO. Watch the ILWU and National Nurses United.
It’s perfectly correct to write off the bulk of the AFL-CIO CTW leadership but not the union movement or the workers movement, which have a historically proven habit of changing the battlefield with rapid their growth and militancy in periods of economic emergency.
No, I am not Norm Solomon. I just use Solomon71 as my avatar.
… so it would seem B O’b
… so it then seems as well BP
The progressive caucus is not progressive.
This should NOT be of any surprise to anybody other than those fully captivated and enslaved within The Beltway Veal Pen.
Once inside the game all erected offals serve at the mercy and direction of their overlords, the corporate fascists who get them erected.
Calling this group progressive, is a joke, not a misnomer.
Hell, it only took ONE RIDE on AF-1 with Obama and Kuch dumped all over the Public Option, after killing any hope for Single Payer. They all serve themselves second and their corporate fascist masters first.
This is NOT new news, by any means. Lemme know when you REALLY wanna rant and rile against the evil, cuz this is milquetoast and pointless dribble.
There ARE no viable options within the system.
That’s why you got no replies.
This system is owned and operated fully, top to bottom by the corporate fascists.
NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO RUN, OR WIN, if they are not part of the game.
Changes to this horrid madness will only come from without the system, from HUGE pressures by the masses, in the forms of boycotts, protests, and efforts to live and survive below the radar of the norms.
Thanks for wading in on this one.
The proggy caucus members are nothing more than corporate centrist voters and votes to ensure their place at the Beltway Table Veal Pen.
Their careers, lifestyles, and place in the world are dependent upon voting along corporate centrist lines, despite their faux proggy duck quack harumphs.
Smoke, mirrors, kabuki . . . obvious to any one with an education anymore. A few decades ago, before the internet, they MIGHT get away with appearing to be proggy. Not any more. Life in the fast lane of the intertoobz has fully exposed them for what they really are.
Bought, owned and operated by their corporate fascist overlords.
On we trudge, without them . . . they are of NO use to us, we the people, not in any form or guise or makeup they take.
*G*
While I agree with yer premises for the most part, let me say that Ralph Nader has never been a serious contender, because the system is owned and operated by the corporate fascists.
This system will not ALLOW change to come from within it.
Ergo, Nader was NEVER a serious contender, and that shoots apart the thrust of those premises you make that I DO agree with.
Please, no whining about Nader, et al. It’s quite unbecoming and well, completely inaccurate and misleading as you paint it.
I know you are a doer of the nth degree hoss, but, in this case your comment is wishful and nonsensical given the system will not ALLOW for real proggy’s to ever get involved, erected, and if they are, they are speedily adapted and absorbed into the hive.
NO CHANGE for the betterment of the masses will ever come from within the present political system as it’s owned and operated fully by corporate fascists.
Change will have to come from OUTSIDE of the political system, and change is inevitable cuz what we got going on is unsustainable.
Change from without is inevitable, either mama nature is gonna do it, or the masses will FORCE change upon the system. At some point, when the gap of haves and have nots is so great, this will all collapse of its own volition . . . one way or another. History proves it.
Yeah, yours is the good common sense assessment of what has already happened to the political/media system. “What should we do about it?” was my comment way up at @4.
Hell, I don’t know, but I think a lot of us older folks are just on automatic pilot, ’cause political discussion is part of what happened at dinner tables and in colleges back thirty, forty years ago. Younger people, the cut-off is really around 40, almost never have that background. Political discussion around the dinner table died because it’s embarrassing to do that unless you have an actual democracy that listens to you and doesn’t treat you like a sucker. And very few could pretend Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were serious, honest people rather than ‘anything it takes’ salesmen. A couple of manipulating scam artists, and the same with the sold-out parties – crass vehicles for redistributing income up – they belonged to. And more recently their successors Obama and Bush, the same thing.
Occupy was a failed attempt to at least have an actual democratic politics in the space of small downtown parks. It briefly inspired a lot of young people, but its failure and partial cooptation into ‘those scary Republican’ electoral politics surely has done the opposite.
Not much to work with on the hope front.
The only thing I’d say is that ten years is much too long a time frame. We could have very different politics in a couple years if Obama continues to grind the economy down and redistribute money up. Basically, when the rich run things they do a progressively crappier job of it from the perspective of the bottom 80%, and we do have ways of letting our masters know we’re pissed off. Take a look around two years from now.
What “huge pressures” do you suggest? Please be specific.
I totally agree, but comparing the Tea “Party” and a left Party, like the Green Party, can be confusing.
The Tea Party is a wing of the Republican Party. According to a New Yorker magazine article about the Koch brothers, they conceived of the Tea Party in the 1980s. And no Republican crosses the Koch brothers.
The Tea Party has enjoyed Republican voters and the formal and informal infrastructure of the Republican Party, from funds, to strategists, to church groups and youth groups, etc.
To the extent, if any, that there are still any differences between Blue Dogs and the rest of the Democratic politicians, Teabaggers are a lot more like Blue Dogs than they are like the left that the Democratic Party left behind when the DLC raptured right wing Democrats.
I don’t say that because both groups are the right of their respective political Parties, but because both groups are structurally similar.
So far, Tea Party candidates did not face challenges from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party just to get on a ballot or participate in a debate, as do the Greens. (Nader may still be litigating.) And a well-funded “Tea Party” candidate’s primarying a less well-funded and less well-connected fellow Republican is a lot different from a comparatively penniless Green Party candidate’s defeating both a well-funded Democrat and a well-funded Republican in a general election.
And, then, there’s media coverage, all-important, especially when political sugar daddies like the Kochs (or the Spielbergs) aren’t pouring money and whatever personal goodwill they have into your campaign.
It was as if the media wasn’t aware that the Green Party existed in 2012, let alone that it ran a Presidential candidate of sound mind. Contradistinctively, only two years earlier, the media treated a dim bulb Tea Party grifter whose campaign funds paid her rent and whose campaign ads boasted that she was not a witch as though she were a totally serious contender for nomination to the Senate of the United States, fit to sit with the likes of Kerry, Schumer, Sanders, etc.
I agree on principle, but I often wonder about words.
Among other things, words shape our thinking, often without our realizing it, which is the insidious kind of influence. Our thinking is the origin of the actions that we choose to take.
With apologies to Swift, I have a modest proposal. Let’s stop referring to “third” parties.
For one thing, the term “third party” is vague and relatively meaningless.
The U.S. currently is home to at least ten political parties. (Actually, wiki lists about seven on the right and about fourteen on the left, so eight is, pardon the expression a very conservative estimate.)
How can every one of 8 or more political Parties be a “third Party?” Which of the eight or more political Parties is
third party?
For another thing, the term itself implies to us repeatedly that we have only two political Parties worthy of being called by their chosen names. That is not a subconscious influence on hearts and minds that I want to reinforce.
All others, from the far right to the far left are so meaningless that we can lump them together as “third parties.” Is it useful for any analytical purpose whatever to class the U.S. Communist Party with the Conservative Party of New York State?
How about we at least divide political Parties into left and right?
I don’t especially care which terms we use and am very willing to leave that to someone more creative than I. However, for now, it seems easy, if unimaginative, to refer to any political Party to the left of the center right Democratic Party as a “leftist Party” and to any political Party to the right of the confused Republican Party as a “rightist” Party.
Larue, please try to understand. The main point of a third party Presidential candidate in this era, whether that candidate be Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, or your dog Spot, is to gain 5% of the vote and qualify for FEC funding.
The 2004 issue had less to do with Nader than with the phenomenal ability of prominent “progressives” to rope the rank-and-file into voting for a candidate who (as the late Alexander Cockburn showed) looked like this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/06/lessons-they-won-t-learn-from-november-2-a-word-from-nader-a-last-look-at-kerry-and-michael-moore/
Norman Solomon was one of those prominent “progressives.”
Excellent point. Touche’. The D-bot LOTE crowd is probably frantically e-mailing their think tanks for a response.
Sorry if this has been addressed in the 80 responses above as I’m pressed for time …
Where exactly is this “Seriously Green Ralph Nader” you’re referring to?!? I ask because I had the misfortune of voting for what I thought was the “Seriously Green Ralph Nader” back in Election 2000 when I would’ve been better off staying the fuck home since it’s become quite obvious that the “Seriously Full Of Shit (And Proud Of It) Ralph Nader” existed long before the “Seriously Green Ralph Nader”. Then again, I’ve also long suspected that the “Seriously Full Of Shit Ralph Nader” and the “Occasionally Full Of Shit Norm Solomon” basically use the Green Party as a convenient justification to take turns drunk-dialing each other just for shits and giggles.
The Regressive Caucus sure taught ‘em well …
Ralph Nader was forced into the “persuade the Democrats” approach by the failure of the Green Party to become an entity in American political culture. Nader himself was always at best a vehicle for the Green Party, and when the two entities split up, there was no point in further Nader support.