Tweet
So the election is over, and as predicted the President won reelection handily. The electoral college victory President Obama won over Romney was an open hand slap to Mitt’s campaign and after looking at some of the other election numbers; a rebuke of CONservative principles and a tolling of the bells on the inevitable demise of the Republican Party as we know it. Those are all good things, and as some of my colleagues have pointed out to me there are other positives too. The continued increase in the Latino voting population likely means a more progressive voting block for years to come; and I must concede that if this continues, it seems likely that eventually Congress will be forced to enact some sort of real immigration reform. I thought it impossible at first and argued that, even with the numbers grossly against them, that CONservative politicians and the big businesses they represent would do everything in their power to hold onto the cheap labor source of undocumented immigrants and the added bonus of wage suppression this has on the wider domestic economy. But they may not be able to stop it, maybe. We’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out, I will submit though, that this state of affairs may push the 1% and their henchmen into other forms of wage suppression in order to recapture any profit loss this may entail, but again, we’ll just have to wait and see.
Open handed slap to Romney and CONservatism aside, the reelection of the President was also an embrace of the NeoLiberal policies advanced by the modern Democratic Party, privatization of schools nationwide and deregulation of everything from the transportation system in Atlanta Georgia to the continued deregulation of genetically modified food labeling in California, irresponsibly low taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals, the continued fleecing of the working class and the beginning of the dismantling of what remains of the social safety net with the “Grand Bargain” aiming directly at Social Security, Medicare and set to nearly eradicate Medicaid. **Here is a video of The Young Turk’s Cenk Ugyr talking about, you guessed it, the Democrats betraying the working class ALREADY! Sadly, Cenk STILL thinks Dems and Obama are somehow the less evil, and somehow thinks that the path forward is to go after overturning Citizen United to get money out of politics….[the flaw I find in his "logic" is that he is relying on the same bought off crop of 'public servants' in Congress who brought us this mess and many more to reverse it]……with “progressives” like these who needs CONservatives?**
[Mmmm, perhaps Cenk and many others should read this column by Chris Hedges entitled 'Why I'm Voting Green' in which Hedges explains why he voted for Jill Stein in the presidential race and points out the historical truth that almost every major advancement in actual progressive legislation in the U.S.....has come on the strength of third parties, third parties who did not win the elections but who acted as a mechanism with which to punsih one of the major parties and to force them to adopt progressive policy. I don't know how much simpler the case has to be made.]
I know that most of the folks who cast their vote for President Obama and the Dems did not have this in mind, and that many voted simply out of fear of the other side; but it is impossible to separate one from the other, every vote cast amounts to a co-signing of the aforementioned policy positions.
I believe I mentioned it once before, but I once joked on a thread at another site when we were arguing about the Democrats being corporatist that, if folks kept co-signing and endorsing the rightward drift of the Democratic Party that ‘progressives’ of 50 years from now would be arguing for a “tax increase of 1/1000th of a percent on the wealthy for all income earned over a gazillion dollars!” A ridiculous position of course; but why not? After all, where exactly is the line that liberals and progressives of the United States will not cross? I have yet to see one; and neither has the corporatist, right-wing, NeoLiberal Democratic party.
As for the death of the Republicans, I honestly don’t know what sort of party will spring up in their place. Whatever it is, it must be less racist, less bigoted, and less religiously intolerant than the current GOP if it hopes to survive. The destruction of the GOP is certainly good in and of itself; but I think that is a decade or two in the making.
In the meantime, as the right implodes it will get meaner and scarier and nastier than ever, and the corporatist Dems will be there to suck up votes and move the country further to the right ever more stealthily as they appear continually better than their counterparts. The question is what kind of right-wing, NeoLiberal laws and precedents will be put into place throughout this period? This pattern of lesser evilism has already brought us Citizen’s United, a nonexistent middle class and a working class under seige, it’s already brought us massive tax cuts on the wealthy and cuts to social programs across the board for average citizens, it’s already brought us the financial ruin of 2008, the loss of millions of working class jobs andworking class homes and the bailouts of the same folks who caused the mess in the first place. The wage of the average worker hadn’t increased in over 30 years before the crisis in 2008; and the jobs coming back to the economy are lower paying than before. And the list goes on. And I haven’t even touched on the eradication of civil rights or the blood thirsty “foregin policy”we’ve come to expect from this President and his Dem counterparts.
So. What happens now that there is essentially no firewall between the wants and wishes of the multinational corporations and the wealthy individuals funding both wings of the UniParty….and the legislation they want enacted on their behalf?
Song: Phonte ‘Not Here Anymore’
23 Comments
Nice job!
I’m spinning a new essay in my head about the realignment of the major parties. It’s nowhere near ripe yet but here’s a taste.
Thinking beyond parties, to what I see as the major themes, we have the following:
1. social safety netters
2. identity groups
3. libertarian “personal freedoms” (sex,drugs,isolationism, no taxes)
4. religious fundamentalists
5. free enterprisers, free marketeers
6. and the miniscule climate change/cut defense (and an array of other issues) group.
Let’s go with those for now.
If we were to define the party alignments of these groups today, we might say the Democrats are made up of social safety netters, identity groups and some libertarians. The Republicans are comprised of religious fundamentalists, free enterprisers/free marketeers and some libertarians.
The popular “word heard” (word herd?) after this election was that the rapidly growing Latino population makes the current Republican coalition unsustainable.
The question then becomes, given that the Republicans will be forced to change, what will the new alignment look like?
In my view, the Republicans are going to be forced to move away from their scapegoating and hatred of various identity groups towards a more positive “pro liberty” libertarian agenda. This might give them a better opportunity to move some Blacks and Latinos away from the Democratic Party. It might also allow them to win more young voters with an end-the-drug-war agenda. The Republicans, in my view, will migrate toward the libertarian themes.
The Democrats will not change until they have to. They risk losing parts of their libertarian base and they risk losing many young people, gays, Blacks and Latinos. In the long run, supporting the corporate state, which the Democratic Party does, makes them vulnerable with all under-served populations.
Finally, the Occupiers and those third parties like the Greens that push an anti-concentration of wealth agenda and an anti-climate change agenda are really stuck going nowhere. They aren’t wrong; they just won’t succeed.
Good diary, although I believe this to be a misreading:
In fact, the reason the Dems moved right is because the GOP successfully since 1980 pulled the country right. The Dem followed because they had to follow in order to remain viable electorally. They were forced to react to the rightward tilt. Why do you think Blue Dogs exist? The only way to get elected in certain states and precincts is to reflect the majority of voters in your state and precinct.
This is a subtle but important distinction. Now, the shoe seems to be shifting from the right foot to the left foot, slowly to be sure. But remember, it took the GOP from 1964 to 1980 and beyond to get that right shoe tied in the first place.
The GOP now will need to react and move left (relatively speaking) back away from the far right or as you say, the party will implode. It may implode anyway.
But that movement left will actually allow, and actually force the Democrats to move left too, in order to remain viable.
As long as the electorate is perceived correctly as moving left.
Thank you women, minority progressives, gays and younger voters for shifting the Overton Window to left.
The opening is there for further movement. Some of this will depend on the GOP’s ability to adapt and quit the 100% obstruction of moderate-liberal policy and some depends on the Democrats ability to get something done and force the window farther left or continue to keep winning elections and change the fundamentals (especially at the state level impacting he gerrymandering process) if the GOP continues to obstruct and self destruct.
One thing that has been hardly noticed is the Democrats also won more congressinal votes over all but the GOP has built in a home field advantage thanks to years of state govt control in so many states.
What the country needed was leaders; you are correct to say that the Dems followed in order to remain viable. They didn’t “have to follow” though. As followers, they put party over principles. Electorally sound? Perhaps. Utterly bankrupt? Absolutely.
Was there a huge majority of voters demanding amnesty for Wall Street, endless wars in the Middle East and Asia, deregulation of finance, and deficit reduction rather than jobs? I must have missed that.
Democrats followed the money, not the people’s will. Unless the people you’re talking about are their millionaire campaign donors.
Sure, we can argue the morality of what happened.
But this is how the US system works. Politicians get elected by the people they represent. In states and districts where more of the people are conservative, usually a more conservative person will be elected. The quality of the people can change the dynamic marginally, in some cases, like in the Akin vs McCaskill race. But McCaskill is hardle progressive. If say Dennis Kucinich had run that race against Akin, I’m guessing Akin wins going away even after his rape statements.
Your argument really implies that the system needs to be changed because our system forces compromise and movement to the middle, broadly speaking.
To say the Democrats or GOP could have been different if one of the two parties did something different, isn’t even an argument. Its not arguable. Its true. If black were white it would be white.
Just to be clear, my post @3 was in response to post #2 (I hit the wrong reply link). The quote at the top of my post came from another poster.
The truth is, it wasn’t just the Democratic Party who failed on issues like amnesty for Wall Street, endless wars, deregulation of finance and deficit reduction. Those who voted for Obama failed to prioritize these issues as well.
Ah, but the fact is there weren’t a huge majority of voters demanding an end to the wars or convictions on Wall Street, and so on, either.
You are confusing [some] information polls which change, are often misintepreted and easily biased based on the way the polls are structured.
Voting is for candidates who represent a wide range of issues, often contrictorily.
You too like Welsh Terrier are really arguing for a change of system rather than for or against parties.
Perhaps you would prefer direct ballot initiatives say, whether for or against ending a military adventure, on a federal level?
Thats closer to polling people on their preferences.
But be careful there too.
The will of the people may not always be the best way to go and it certainly will not align with progressives in all matters all the time. I’m thinking Prop 13 in California and I’m thinking the heinous 3 strikes ballot initiative in California, as examples.
I am arguing that “the left” needs to do a better job educating the public and winning their support. I am arguing that the Republican coalition is not sustainable. I am arguing that Republicans are likely to move toward libertarian themes and that this will draw some of the Democrats’ traditional base away.
I am not calling for “direct democracy” until such time as we have a more balanced, non-corporate media and until such time as money does not readily translate to power.
I’m not sure what kind of “change of system” you think I’m advocating.
Thanks for stopping by wT2.
I look forward to your post on the realignment of the major parties.
I am particularly curious about what direction the Republican party will take, or if it will simply be replaced with something else entirely.
On social issues I agree with much of what you say.
As far as economic issues, reigning in the plutocracy,real and effective regulation, etc, I don’t think either party is up to the task, not the corpartist Dems of today or the possible less racist, less bigoted and religiously intoloerant manifestation of the GOP in the future.
If you look at the actual numbers at least in the Presidential race it is the Dems who lost about 10 million votes while the Repugs votes stayed almost the same as in ’08.
The Dems will continue to disappoint and help resurrect the Repugs because they are necessary to continus the charade we call Democracy.
Ah, but therein lies the rub. While it is perhaps true that our system forces compromise, it does not necessarily force movement to the middle. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I think you’re saying is that our system forces movement to the middle if a party is to succeed in the short-term.
If a party is truly committed to a set of principles and beliefs and values, perhaps staying the course would yield greater progress, and even greater electoral success, in the long-term. Sometimes winning the hearts and minds of the public takes time, courage and commitment. When you play to a calculated center instead of to a set of deeply held convictions, one wonders what you actually win when you have electoral success.
Perhaps the trick is not to move to the middle but rather to move where the middle lies.
I replied to Tom before I saw your reply. We are in agreement as you state in number 8.
I stand corrected. I may have confused what you stated with what I was thinking you stated…
[:o)
My new definition of a progressive: A member of the LGBT community who is willing to overlook the blood and guts catastrophe of kids killed by drones, as long as “their” government lets them marry.
Good point, the Dems are very consistent when it comes to letting down their base.
I guess my main concern was, what with so many people being deathly afraid of the Republicans that the Dems may simply become the default winners…regardless of how terrible they are.
But your point is good, atleast for the near future, the Dems will keep reviving the GOP by turning of the very folks that vote for them.
Yes, absolutely. The context of my comment regarding the two party system is that there is an inherent assumption that the parties are going to respond to the electorate and each other in a way that they hope will allow them to win elections.
Of course.
And I think commentators and historians are really the only ones who look at politics in the long term.
The politicians are looking at the short term: their own election, winning and then maintaining power.
The fallacy is in believing that any third party, once elevated into a similar position of elected power, won’t become defined by the same forces that moderate the two party system.
Why?
Because if they aren’t also attuned to winning and maintaining power they will never be elevated into that position of power in the first place.
Yes, I agree with you.
I’m afraid the PTB including Obama were able to plug the leak before the Titanic sunk, although she’s still listing and taking on water.
Social change seems to happen much more through eventual enlightenment in people’s attitudes, particularly when new generations come to the table.
Financial and business change tends to require a harsh moment of reckoning. Here we are talking about hardened power structures propped up by great wealth, and people aren’t going to easily overturn the financial system or even care enough to fight that hard to modify it until it hits the wall and we feel there is no other choice.
Even at worst, say the real unemployment/underemployment rate is 25%, that means 3 out of every four people are doing reasonably well. And when hard times come, those three are just as likely to have a conservative, defensive reaction to hold onto theirs as they are to want to make changes that could affect their own livelihoods.
Much looking forward to your contribution.
I think we need to be careful assuming the Latino vote is reliably progressive. It shares a lot in common with with traditional relgious conservatives. Their vote this time was clearly all about immigration , putting them in the “identity group” category. If the D’s get comprehensive immigration reform under O, maybe there will be a more reliable fusion at least for a generation. Maybe. Or maybe then they will be free to vote on other issues, on most of which they look pretty Republican to me. (Church goers, anti-abortion, pro-business.)
The reason O got away with his right-leaning agenda was that the D’s successfully assembled along group-identity lines (with women scared back to them by the vocal right wing and Rhomney-Ryan on reproductive health).
I long for a time when the decisive votes are on issues common to all – taxes, war, civil liberties, climate change, financial reform. Pipedream, maybe – but until we get there, the D’s will get away with pursuing right-wing policies on the issues that affect us all by cobbling together national victories through identity-group bone-tossing.
Excellent point. Been doing some drilling down. The swing states O won-where O obviously put all his resources – look different than the national numbers among HIS voters.
For instance, in 2008 O’s % of youth vote nationally was 66%. This time
it was 59%.
But what he got came from the swing states. In Florida it was 67% 2012 verses 61% 2008. Ohio – 29% vs 25% 2008.
59% nationally is still big, but without the boost from the swing states where he could concentrate resources, it might have been lower.
And since the youth vote went up numbers wise, that’s not a trajectory you want: declining share of expanding base.
Lol! I think you hit the nail on the head there.
We are in total agreement.
I especially agree with your observation that the Latino vote cannot be clearly seen beyond the immigration issue.
I saw this election as a Republican failure more than a Democratic success.
Republicans:
1. raped women with Gods blessing (Strike One)
2. campaigned against affirmative action (Strike Two)
3. called Latinos “illegals” (Y’errrrrr Out!)
The other major factor in the election was strong support for Obama’s auto bailout across key areas of the Midwest.
yes…absolutely…good comment(s) wT2
Thank you SG…commended
Politicians and parties calculate and play and not for a center, but for enough votes to win. The center we describe isn’t ideological it’s an equilibrium, really or a median point along a vertical line from right to left, if you will. The calculation that parties make to determine this point doesn’t determine the election. The people still decide. And the center isn’t necessarily where people reside. When a shift occurs the center, or the equilibrium point shifts too.
When a party calculates purposely too far to one side or other it cannot win and needs to be ansorbed into a colation to broaden its appeal along the line. Whether voters respond is the question. Ultimately the parties follow the people. Politics are a trailing indicator, such as gay marriage and immigration. There are issues for the lefter parties, too but its all how the calculation by the partu will be received.