The youth of today
The youth of today
We’re under heavy heavy manners, yeah.
We’re under heavy heavy manners, yeah.
- Musical Youth, “The Youth of Today”
"Non-cooperation is a protest against an unwitting and unwilling participation in evil."
- Mohandes Gandhi
Can you hear that?
The Democratic Party’s guilt machine is grinding back to life, once again hoping to cajole the faithful – and we who have lost faith – into giving the party just one more chance to do the right thing.
It’s really no different than the come-on of a TV evangelist, and until we, who make up this country’s Left, resolve to view the party as we do when considering whether, say, a local business has earned our patronage, it will continue to cow us into voting for it at election time, and to abuse us unremittingly for the ensuing 18 months.
Some believe the only answer is a viable third party, and there is nothing I’d rather see – along with equally viable fourth, fifth and sixth parties. The kind of coalition building such a paradigm would require could only increase the quality of our political discourse in a time when erstwhile intelligent people are taking the Glenn Becks and Rahm Emanuels of the world seriously.
In three weeks, we progressives have an opportunity to take a huge step toward righting the ship, whilst simultaneously pushing ensconced Democrats back where they belong: to the Left.
Every four years we elect a president. Every two we elect all representatives and one-third of the senate. Midterm (a.k.a. off-year) elections are the perfect opportunity to register our dissent – or pleasure – with both Congress and the President. But for too long, we’ve failed to seize it.
Instead, the minority party, be it the Democrats or Republicans, usually makes gains in the midterms, after which the majority (or former majority) party embarks on "soul searching." The script has played out so many times, people my age – I’ve been a voter for a full generation, 33 years – have it memorized.
It’s time for a rewrite, and I herewith present a strategy for doing so – with a heartfelt tip of my cap to all who have help shaped it, as detailed in parts One and Two of this series.
Election One: November 2, 2010: Take a VOW
First and foremost, go to the polls this November. Lack of engagement will not get this rewrite done. If we keep doing things the same way, the media will stick to the same old script.
In the voting booth, in each race for U.S. House or Senate, do one of the following three things:
1) Vote for true progressives: Candidates from third parties like the Greens, Socialists, Working Families or other decidedly Lefty parties.
2) Only vote for Democratic candidates who have ousted incumbent Democrats in the primaries by running to the left of those incumbents.
3) Write-in the words “PUBLIC OPTION” (or, if you prefer, “MEDICARE FOR ALL”, where the option exists (its availability will vary from state to state). Phrases like "Obama Sucks" could come from anyone; we must be sure to clearly state independent Lefty and registered Democrat anger. Relating that anget to the party’s most visible failure during its two years of congressional and White House control is the most media-savvy way to do it.
Progressives turned out in droves two years ago. Since then, we’ve been disappointed. We must depart from our predicted behavior of staying away and instead turn out, just we did then, to quantify our disappointment. If each of us shows up and exercises one of the above options, the combined votes for this VOW will do just that – and might, maybe – wake this self-described progressive president up.
Do not:
1) Vote for any IncumbaDem, no matter how persuasive the party guilt machine might get. We voters did not squander control of the congress for the last two years, and must now demonstrate our power by purging from congress those who did. And that’s all of them.
2) Buy into any notion that the departure of Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, nor the appointment of Elizabeth Warren, has changed a damned thing. Proving or disproving that is a day-to-day process that will play out over the next two years. And speaking purely for myself, and as long as Bernanke and Geithner and Gibbs and Kaine are still in the picture, it’s a long shot that anything has changed – or that it will, over that period.
3) Worry about any "Dump Obama" strategy during the next three weeks. Worry about it – and begin using as a threat to his incumbency – on November 3.
Election Two: November 6, 2012: Dump Obama?
We will know pretty quickly after these midterms whether this president has had his moment of clarity. Campaign 2012 begins in spring of next year, and if threats of primarying him are necessary, we need to make them – and to begin searching in earnest for his opponent.
Simple as that.
In the interest of exploring all possible scenarios, let’s say – and this is the longest of shots, as most of us realize – but let’s just imagine that Barack Obama reverses his current course in the coming two years, to such a degree that it warrants re-election and another chance at a majority in Congress in 2012. Let’s say he fires Gibbs, Geithner, Bernanke and Kaine and replaces them with true progressives. Let’s say he and the expected Democratic congressional minority re-opens the health care debate, even if the GOP blocks any bill from the floor. Obama ends DADT by Executive Order. Closes Guantanamo. Brings the troops home from Afghanistan.
Even if all this and more occurred, and we were to re-elect him in 2012 with a fresh majority in Congress, the two years between 2012 and 2014 will show us how much he’s learned, and whether the Democrats have finally awakened. But…
Election Three: November 4, 2014: Which Will It Be?
No matter who is in the White House or who controls Congress, the Left must begin to always view midterms as its opportunity to penalize bad Lefty/Democratic party practice and reward good practice.
So in 2014, and in every off-year election thereafter – regardless which party controls congress and the White house – we progressives must pursue the same strategy of holding Lefties (and DINOs) responsible to the Lefty ideals we favor.
This is how our electoral system was intended to work. By simply repeating the steps detailed above in the appropriate electoral contests (midterms and presidential) our influence will be quantified – and new parties will rise to fill the persistent voids.
But it can’t happen – can’t even begin – as long as we are willing to patronize the Democratic Party, no questions asked.
Will You Commit?
The two quotes at the top of this diary point to what’s next – what must be next – if our rewriting of the script that keeps us down is to succeed.
“Heavy manners” is synonymous with “state of emergency.” First used in Jamaica, it refers to Prime Minister Michael Manley’s imposition of martial law in 1976 in order to allow his party to retain power. Eventually, that repressive regime was defeated.
Though more subtle, the Democratic Party has used “heavy manners” in trying to contain the progressive movement that seemed ready to be unleashed with the election of Barack Obama. The turnout that took place in 2008, led largely by the youth of today’s America, must now be repeated on November 2, and we must enlist those same youth in making that happen.
The Gandhi quote, of course, speaks to the difference between NOT participating and non-participation. If we don’t go to the polls at all, if we don’t participate, we can’t be counted. If we go but make non-participation in the co-opting of the Democratic Party our message, we reject unwitting and unwilling participation in evil (even if some insist it is the lesser of two evils!).
If you can see the sense in the above-detailed strategy – and are willing volunteer perhaps 20 minutes for each of the next 20 days in order to further it – we can begin to consolidate at the national level the same kind of change progressive activists at the state and local levels have pursued and continue to pursue to great effect.
If you worked on the Obama campaign, you doubtless had contact with many of the youth to which I refer. Will you commit to tracking them down, conveying our strategy to them, and then asking them to make the same commitment to contacting and informing others?
November 2 is not far off, but here in the Internet age, there is still time. We waited too long for the chance to bring fundamental change to America to let it slip away now, overtaken by a narrative from the same old mainstream media script.
It’s said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing time and again but expecting different results. It would therefore follow that only a new approach, created by the generation that is all too familiar with the old-hat system which has kept progressivism down and passed to the next generation – which seems poised to play into that same old system – stands a real chance of producing different results.
I hope we progressives still retain an ember of the optimism we felt on Inauguration Day, 2008, and will fan it with e-mails and phone calls to the youth of today, who so inspired so many of us.
Will you join this effort?
themalcontent is Anthony Noel, an award-winning writer, editor, and former small-town journalist. Contact him at admin@themalcontent.com.



30 Comments

I want to thank all those who have commented already on the first two parts of this series. I also want to apologize for not responding too much – I was flying much of yesterday and will be doing more of that today.
Thanks again, all, and please let me know either by e-mail or here in the comments if you’ll help spread the word. I’d also love to see diaries detailing your efforts in reaching out to the next generation.
Peace and love,
Tony
Your assertion that we need additional parties so that it would increase the quality of our political discourse would also cause it to lead to gridlock. In countries where they have multiple parties that must fashion a coalition to govern, they tend to never get anything passed because the parties are very disparate in their goals and are only aligned to get a lick of power. Can you imagine if FDR tried to get Social Security passed with a multitude of parties in the Congress? The right wingers obviously would vote against it. The liberals would have voted against it because it didn’t cover everyone. He would have been hosed.
I am in complete agreement with your voting strategy Mr. Noel. It has been my voting strategy since 2000. I have been railing against lessor evilism for ten years. It’s a hard nut to crack and I fear it will serve to further consolidate and legitimize the new Fascism/Feudalism. Thank you for your efforts.
You lay out a good framework. This is very, very good. Earlier this year, I had proposed a plan, the Full Court Press for challenging congressional Dems in the 2012 primaries. I think it involved too much commitment too early, and at this point I am focusing on Dump Obama, which is less complex and has more gut appeal.
But I think the plan had useful insights and you might want to check it out.
When you write:
… it’s not far from the FCP’s 5 points, and I have no interest in quibbling over details. Its sense of the overall movement is a great addition to the concept.
Here was the fundamental problem with the Full Court Press. The people it attracted (not a few) either said they supported the plan, but then moved into “let’s target a few races we can win!” Which is the kiss of death, given the compromises that flow from that.
Or they were independents at heart who hadn’t the stomach for working in the Democratic primaries.
Your framework takes this into account much better than mine did.
The far right has been doing this for decades, at least on the Congressional level. They have taught the Republicans to fear them, and as a result, the Republicans obey the orders of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and so on. Why the left can’t get it done against Democrats is beyond me, but it is long past time we started.
1. how does an electoral strategy work without changing the current metanarrative of “the center right majority”? we can “dump Obama”,But the corporate propaganda servers, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc., will claim it was a “victory for moderates” and a “mandate” to cut taxes, reduce “entitlments” etc.,
2. How do we know what a “true progressive” is before we vote? they have proven they are willing to tell the most outrageous lies to get elected and of course, renig later.
3. Even if everyone does what you ask, to expect that we will have “fresh majorities” in 2014 is only a leap faith. what if there are republican majorities anyway? do we keep wasting time trying to control freak yet another 4 years worth of national elections? How about this: for a couple mimutes up to a couple hours, every 2 years, everyone vote, vote your conscience. OK! thats done, now for the rest of the year taking direct action confronting
yeah and youll notice, roe v wade hasnt been overturned, no one is praying in school, jobs havent returned to the south and midwest, or the northeast rustbelt, real wages are flatlined or dropping, etc., etc,. etc..so for all the “terror” republican have for thier base, nothing changes. I think they arent really afraid, I think they just learned to pay lip service to them. ELECTORAL POLITICAL GAMES area waste of time.
The issue — ever and always — is what can WE build? They will do what they do. Any strategy dependent on modifying their behavior is fucked from the beginning.
All these things are usable by us, if we understand that we are using them. As you point out, false expectations are crippling.
I think that the repugs keep those evil spectres around as fund raisers. They keep blaming the liberals for not allowing them to make the changes that the wingers say that they want, even when w had the power to do whatever he pleased (except privatize SS).
It becomes somewhat hard to make your message heard at the voting booth now. We just returned home from Cooperstown, NY. The candidate signs were out in abundance. There was a problem, however, in that not a single sign had the party affiliation of the candidate. Unless you knew what party he (no signs for any woman) represented, you wouldn’t know until you got to the voting booth.
In reply to solerso @ 8
Those things have been ruled unconstitutional, and thus cannot be changed merely by legislation. IMO it’s unfair to consider those in making the case the Repubicans don’t cater to their base. The only way to change those is a constitional amendment, or a really conservative SCOTUS. And it you’ve been following, they HAVE worked toward the latter.
And again, IMO this isn’t making the case the Republicans don’t meet the demands of their base. Since when have Republicans, or their base, ever given a shit about real wages, or the unemployment?
The Republicans represent the wealthy, and those that do the hiring. And they LOVE lots of unemployment as it drives down the cost of labor. And IMO this is thre real base of the REpublican Party. They took on the religiouns right out of necessity, but their hearts have always been with the rich. And anyone that’s followed the Republican playbook for the last 30 years can tell they have delivered and then some for the rich. The rich are richer than they’ve ever been, and the difference between rich and poor is greater than it’s ever been.
I believe themalcontent has it right. The Republicans do fear their base. The Democrats ridicule and take their for granted. And if I were a politician and I knew a certain group would vote for me no matter what, I can’t see any reason why I’d need to work to please them. They’re already going to vote for me.
The Democrats have GOT to learn to fear their base, not take them for granted. When they can’t take us for granted, they WILL begin to work for our votes, instead of simply counting on them. And that will be a good day for the base, the Democratic Party, and for the country IMO.
The way to nullify this is to get stronger turnouts for Green, Progressive, Socialist, and other left-wing parties in elections. We have to build locally and work our way up to the state levels, and then we can seriously look at running national-level campaigns.
But we have to start building now where we haven’t tried before, and we have to rebuild where we have tried so that the left-wing parties that have been allowed to deteriorate become stronger again.
One good idea is to look at what the Progressive Party has done in Vermont and see what they’re doing right that other organizations have yet to try. They’ve gotten statewide offices and have not only largely maintained them, but continue to do very well locally. Why not look at their strategies and tactics and apply them in our own backyards, where applicable?
Considering that the Republicans’ bosses are the corporations, and those corporations are the far right, I think my assertion stands.
Would you please relate this comment to Rayne’s roadmap diary? I don’t see the point of “starting locally”, if you mean just running candidates for municipal elections. Of course, that’s fine, but why not aspire to at least state level, where of course you have some sort of ground game throughout the state? (“Ground game” is another phrase for Rayne’s roadmap.)
OTOH, I can see deliberately avoiding runs for Federal office, if for no other reason than to get the support of progressives who lean Democratic, and are terrified of turning over large numbers of seats in Congress to Republicans.
Please see my diary “Dump Corporate Dems” – Going Green at the State Level, to “make Dems do it” at the Federal level
I think going this route is a huge win/win for progressives that lean Green party and progressives that lean Democratic Party. The progressive/Green/Democrat voting bloc can be used to exert political muscle at the Federal level while the state Green Party’s growth is accelerated. Meanwhile, if the bloc grows big enough, it can at that point remove the Corporate Dem from office, and substitute with either a Green (eventually) or a progressive Democrat.
I’m not seeing much downside, though I suppose you’d could have progressives lose political muscle at the state level temporarily, if they had formed any alliances with mainstream state-level Dems that got shattered, in the process.
Thanks for commenting, beardedcrank, but I must disagree. I think a very straight line can be drawen between the fact that countries with vibrant multiple parties ALL tend to be further left than this one. So you assertion that coalition building leads to gridlock doesn’t hold. If want to continue pushing it, please provide links which support this assertion.
Thanks again for contributing to the conversation.
Thanks workingclass. I sense from some of your prior comments that you’ve leaned toward total “to hell with it all” disengagement as opposed to using the electoral process to push things Left. As I said in part two, I have vascillated between the two myself. But I do think, looking at the midterms/presidential paradigm as it now exists, that the Left must do a better job of using midterms as a referendum on the elected officials who claim to serve it, and not get caught up in the major parties’ game of guilt about potential short term losses (or gains).
Thanks jeffroby, for the vote of confidence and your kind words here and at #4. I would welcome any dissemination of this strategy you may be inclined to undertake.
With due respect, solerso, this comments leads me to conclude that you’ve only skimmed this diary, because changing the narrative to which you refer is exactly what the strategy aims to do. Let me know if you want a clearer explanation and I’ll try to help, but if you read the piece, it’s all in there.
By looking at their record and not accepting some party’s word for it. By talking tho them personally and getting an assurance of what they will advocate for, and a direct number you can call if they renege to ask them about it. Our politics is like our food; we only know where it comes from if we take the time to find out.
Yes. “Control freaking” is the definition of elections: they are our only chance to have a quantified and certified voice each two years. Voting always has been and always has been a leap of faith. But we make it less risky by doing the work to qualify candidates, and asserting, re-asserting, and re-re-asserting our objectives by voting out fakes will move the process Left. If you don’t want to do that work, that’s your choice – but don’t kid yourself: Getting the world you want takes work, and lots of it.
Thanks OFG.
So… any VOW takers? C’mon people, this isn’t gonna happen without your help!
I totally agree with yr strategy. I’m in!
I would certainly vote for Russ Feingold if I lived in Wisconsin. I am not opposed to people voting for incumbents who have been strong progressives. (I can probably count them all on one hand, however.)
Boo fkn hoo. The Federal government is already in the hands of bankster criminals. Gridlock would be better than what we’ve got now.
Correct.
I think it has something to do with your statement here:
Oh, the President is quite clear about what he’s doing, all right. And he will continue to be clear about it, because the corporate mass media will cover for them in stifling any dissent against the Washington Consensus.
As for third parties, they will continue to be repressed little collections of five guys in a room. Oh, it’s tragic that they remain that way, but you can see from the substance of the complaints about the Democrats even around here that nothing is going to happen.
Hedges seems to have it right:
I mostly agree, cass, but the fact remains that boards of elections – which are locally empowered and controlled – are required to report every vote. So the strategy here aims to ensure that the sum of the VOW votes is sufficient to force the media to report it, and report it as a strong protest from the left. Even if it doesn’t work this year, it is the correct midterm strategy, and we need to start pursuing it at some point.
Why not now?
Well OK. There’s an old tradition of electoral fraud in this country — it probably showed up in at least four states in the 2004 Presidential election.
I suppose there’s the comparison between that election and the recent one in Mexico — AMLO was elected President, continued his protest for a few days, and then disappeared. I tend to take the Zapatista perspective on Mexican elections — they argue that as the whole culture of political patronage is the ruination of Mexican democracy, why even bother to take sides? Certainly we’re not far off from that reality in the US.
I agree with your perspective — I guess I just imagine that things will get worse because the behavior of the vast majority of the people keeps it that way.
And they do this by going to the polls and doing what the establishment Democratic party leaders ask, like dogs leaping thru hoops.
Whie I get your concern about voting fraud, and as much as I like Hedges’ anger, writing, and criticism, I find him a little lacking in the “what do we do about it” realm.
Or a little slow to emerge. Hedges says a few things about that in a post he made back in September, “Do Not Pity The Democrats“:
Oh, and I forgot. I VOW to write in “Medicare for All” in this 2010 election in the race for the U.S. House in my district. (No Senator in my state is up this year).